What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

The Thriller said:
It doesn't matter what the political affiliations of the whistleblowers are. Everything they have complained about has been verified through the call's summarized transcript, through Rudy's rantings on TV, and through Donald's own actions.
Click to expand...
It's almost incredible to see them continue to go to this well. Their supposed political bias might have some meaning if what they alleged was inaccurate, but it's all been borne out as being true.

The truth doesn't change just because of the political affiliation of the person saying it.
 
Zombie said:
It's almost incredible to see them continue to go to this well. Their supposed political bias might have some meaning if what they alleged was inaccurate, but it's all been borne out as being true.

The truth doesn't change just because of the political affiliation of the person saying it.
Click to expand...

You would think this was obvious... But it appears that 40 percent of this country, including several frequent posters here, don't get it. It's so Orwellian that even Orwell must be rolling in his grave.
 
Red said:
So let's have this unknown person testify to the appropriate House committees. Let he or she identify the source(s) within the White House who heard the call, and conveyed impressions to that whistleblower. There are others besides the unknown whistleblower to hear from.

As for a court of law, in this instance, that would be the Senate, since we're talking impeachment. I don't want to see an obstruction of Congress count as the only Article of Impeachment. I want to hear the evidence, and hear from the witnesses and informants where the Ukraine matter is concerned. But, your president is refusing to recognize that the Constitution grants the Legislative branch the checks and balances power of oversight over the Executive branch. This is very unconstitutional of him, I believe.

We were supposed to hear from the EU ambassador, Sondland, yesterday. Earlier in this thread you made a point of stating that nobody here wanted to mention that Sondland said "no quid pro quo" in the text message exchange with Taylor. But, what you did not mention is that there was a 5 hour gap between Taylor saying it was "crazy" to link assistance to Ukraine with investigating the Bidens, and Sondland's next text reply. Further, of all the comments in the text exchange, that reply by Sondland sounds like it was written by a lawyer. You also failed to mention that Sondland ended his text by saying let's stop texting about this. I wonder why. Actually, no, I don't:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/wh...ed-trump-texting-no-quid-pro-quo-top-n1063841

Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland consulted directly with President Donald Trump before telling the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine that there had been "no quid pro quo” regarding the administration's pressure campaign on the country and urging the diplomat to stop texting about his concerns, a person with knowledge of the call confirmed to NBC News.

Sondland spoke to Trump by phone on Sept. 9 before responding to acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor's remark that it would be “crazy” to link Ukraine assistance to help with a political campaign, the person said. When Sondland responded several hours later, he told Taylor that Trump had been “crystal clear” that there had been no quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
Hell yeah let's have this person testify. Everyone but the Democrats want that. I've been calling on an inquiry vote for days all while Democrats know damn well giving the right their fair access just might end the entire party.


To your second hypothetical that's all it is. What if by wanting to end the text he didn't care to get sucked into this very scenario. At no point did he incriminate anybody even though Taylor tried. You are making up a fairy tale scenario. Sondland specifically said there is "no quid pro quo". Twist that all you want but it's right there in writing. Nowhere and I mean nowhere is there any quid pro quo. It's a figment of your imagination.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Hell yeah let's have this person testify. Everyone but the Democrats want that. I've been calling on an inquiry vote for days all while Democrats know damn well giving the right their fair access just might end the entire party.


To your second hypothetical that's all it is. What if by wanting to end the text he didn't care to get sucked into this very scenario. At no point did he incriminate anybody even though Taylor tried. You are making up a fairy tale scenario. Sondland specifically said there is "no quid pro quo". Twist that all you want but it's right there in writing. Nowhere and I mean nowhere is there any quid pro quo. It's a figment of your imagination.
Click to expand...
Doesn't need to be quid pro quo to be impeachable silly.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Last edited:
I’m going to check back here to see who the last rat will be to jump off the sinking ship.

drudge is fed up
Tucker has condemned trump
Even that moron from fox and friends
Lindsay

Will you be last man standing?




Yet here you guys are. Deaf to facts and hanging on to the guy who promised you to feel good about being a white male again.

He scared you into his camp. And he won’t be there to hold your hand as his historically terrible rein comes to an end.

Man, this is going to be soooooo painful that I almost feel bad for these mentally challenged nimrods.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top