Imagine, being such a godamn fuking moron you use words like "beta male" unironically. Holy shit you MAGAts truly are a bunch of inbred idiots.
Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Imagine, being such a godamn fuking moron you use words like "beta male" unironically. Holy shit you MAGAts truly are a bunch of inbred idiots.
QAnon said that you Libtards would say that.
remember when we asked why they stopped using qpq in here? the libs in here defended the move away from the term. turns out it was just a focus group term from some swing states. LOL
i think its clear that the dems dont actually care about the specific charges. they know they cant prove any of it and that this will ultimately fail. they are just trying to paint trump in a negative light and hoping it hurts him in 2020 because they know their candidates suck.
I'd love to know what points relating to the actual event in question the maga chuds disagree with.
I see a lot of posts about Biden and Democrats and the process and Adam Schiff and the terminology being used.
I see none disputing the event in question. When deflection to other issues is your best defense it means you've stopped defending what happened and you'd just rather change the conversation.
I see a lot of posts about Biden and Democrats and the process and Adam Schiff and the terminology being used.
I see none disputing the event in question. When deflection to other issues is your best defense it means you've stopped defending what happened and you'd just rather change the conversation.
I think it's impossible for a reasonable person, truly interested in facts, to review what is known and not arrive at the very simple conclusion that Trump was withholding the aid conditional upon a public statement regarding investigations pertaining to 2016 and Burisma.
The only unknowns that could change that narrative are the individuals not testifying.
Your perception is what leads you to believe it's so cut and dried. The transcript doesn't demonstrate a bribe, so its left to "assuming" that was his intent. Zelensky says there is nothing there so all we can do is "assume" that he is afraid to tell the truth. 3rd party accounts would normally be dismissed, but we have to "assume" that they are accurate because it agrees with confirmation bias.
I'm still undecided on whether this is impeachable because there isn't a smoking gun, it all depends on too many assumptions. Otoh, there is evidence of election tampering based on a ukranian conviction of a guy who admitted to it on tape. There is evidence that something doesn't seem quite right with Burisma and our aid dollars going missing; can't say without a doubt that Biden is complicit but it does seem fishy.
I'm more than open to the possibility that trump is guilty and should be removed. I'm also more than open to the possibility that biden and the state dept aren't lily-white characters in all of this. Not sure why either of those positions is unreasonable but then again I don't lean on confirmation bias like hardcore partisans who have are convinced that Trump is perfect or detractors who have wanted him removed before he even took the oath of office.
Zelensky coming forward and stating that trump wanted him to make a public statement.
A different transcript of the call showing that trump asked for a public announcement.
Anything beyond that is hearsay and assumption because the accusation is that this happened between 2 people who both deny it.
First hand accounts of that happening aren't good enough? You need a head of state to throw the president of the US under the bus? Lol you realize how insane your expectations are?
Hearsay can be much better evidence than direct, as we have learned in painful instances and it's certainly valid in this instance...
Do you realize how low your standards for prosecution are?
"I heard that "x" murdered his wife from a friend who heard it from his mother in law". The wife is still alive and denies that she's dead, but you believe that the guy murdered his wife. Yeah, the guy was drunk the other night and made an ass out of himself, or so I heard, so it wouldn't surprise me if he killed his wife. Plus, his next door neighbor saw him with a shovel out in the backyard last saturday. Case closed.
We're hearing from first hand witnesses this week.
That's not good enough for you? You want to call the President of Ukraine to the stand?
Zelensky? The guy who needs Trump for military aid? You want him to turn on Trump?
If sondland testifies that trump personally told him that Ukraine had to announce an investigation into Biden to get aid money or weapons, then that's game, set, match. Trump is guilty and needs to be removed. If he testifies that trump told him that Ukraine has to investigate 2016 election interference and the Burisma deal, we have some gray area. If sondland testifies that trump told him that we aren't going to release aid dollars until we are sure that they will be used appropriately and not disappear like prior aid dollars, regardless of whether he invoked the Bidens, then trump is free and clear.
I'll bet dollars for doughnuts that this ends up in the gray area.
Great analogy!!! That's the same deal we have here, right?
Trump and his cronies attempted to use military aid to extort a public announcement of an investigation of the Bidens that would damage Joe Biden's campaign. Trump denies it but ...
- A room full of people heard Trump on the phone.
- The original phone call transcript was spirited away to a secret server and an 'unofficial' official version was released.
- Three Ambassadors have now admitted it happened.
- Trump was overheard on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland if Zelensky was ready to play ball and the Ambassador assured him he was.
- Ambassador Sondland was quoted as saying to the assembled group after the call that Trump doesn't give a sh*t about Ukraine, only 'big things' like getting dirt on Joe Biden.
- Ambassador Taylor reported that the Ukrainians were: 1) aware their aid had been held up; and 2) were in panic-mode about it.
- Ukraine President Zelensky scheduled an interview with CNN … and then abruptly cancelled it once the whistleblower report went public.
- The military aid was released once the whistleblower whistled.
Case closed, right Crazy?
Why does he need military aid? Who does he need that aid to fight back? Why wouldn't he assume a democrat president would provide that same aid?
Tell me, why is it in the best interests of Ukraine (who is being attacked by russia) to have Trump in the Oval office? For the last 3 years all ive heard is that trump is a Russian puppet. Don't you see the disconnect here?
We may have learned of a potential smoking gun today via this AP Story.
The briefings show that U.S. officials knew early that Zelensky was feeling pressure to investigate Biden, even though the Ukrainian leader later denied it in a joint news conference with Trump in September. The officials said in their notes circulated internally at the State Department that Zelenskiy tried to mask the real purpose of the May 7 meeting–which was to talk about political problems with the White House–by saying it was about energy, the two people said.
In a world where Mulvaney, Bolton, Rudy, and Perry don't testify - and the administration ignores subpoenas that would cover precisely these kinds of internal communications, I see no choice but to believe the worst. My hope is that the house impeaches and the Senate process demands testimony/evidence which will ensure we have all the facts.
Given this scenario, you don't see why Zelenksy and his people would be scared to death they might not get their military aid from Trump?
And you can't understand why Ukraine wouldn't want to dive head-first into American party politics??!?!?
Great analogy!!! That's the same deal we have here, right?
Trump and his cronies attempted to use military aid to extort a public announcement of an investigation of the Bidens that would damage Joe Biden's campaign. Trump denies it but ...
BUT...(trumpet fanfare) ...once the aid was released Zelensky told reporters there was no pressure put on him to get his defense money.
- A room full of people heard Trump on the phone.
- The original phone call transcript was spirited away to a secret server and an 'unofficial' official version was released.
- Three Ambassadors have now admitted it happened.
- Trump was overheard on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland if Zelensky was ready to play ball and the Ambassador assured him he was.
- Ambassador Sondland was quoted as saying to the assembled group after the call that Trump doesn't give a sh*t about Ukraine, only 'big things' like getting dirt on Joe Biden.
- Ambassador Taylor reported that the Ukrainians were: 1) aware their aid had been held up; and 2) were in panic-mode about it.
- Ukraine President Zelensky scheduled an interview with CNN … and then abruptly cancelled it once the whistleblower report went public.
- The military aid was released once the whistleblower whistled.
Case closed, right Crazy?
Ugh.
1. It wasn't a "room full of people" and it wasn't on speaker phone. It's one guy who was sitting at the next table who heard half of the conversation. You are inferring what was said based on your confirmation bias.
2. Thus far, it's only rumor that the transcript isn't accurate or was redacted.
3. On 3rd hand knowledge based on insinuation.
4. "Play ball" is open to characterization. The prior president in Ukraine was russia friendly and couldn't be trusted. Should we trust the next guy, or will he continue the prior administration's policy of not "playing ball"?
5. Sondland said that Trump "cares more about Biden than Ukraine". You exaggerated it to make a point, which is fine but it proves that you aren't being objective.
6. We've also been told that they had no idea that aid was being held up. Hard to say what is true.
7. CNN was trying to schedule the interview for months prior to this. You characterize it as zelensky reaching out to CNN for the explicit reason of announcing that Biden was being investigated but there is no evidence of that being the case.
8. Please provide a timeline.
There was a "room full of people" listening on a speaker phone. We have Col. Vindman's first hand testimony but most of them report directly to Trump and have declined to talk about it.
Why is that, Crazy? And why not release the OFFICIAL audio tape of the call? If everything was as 'perfect' as Trump claims, these 'rumors' and 'third-hand accounts' get cleared up immediately the impeachment inquiry comes to an abrupt end.
Only rumor? The transcript memo begins by stating THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT.
Three Ambassadors directly involved in these dealings (two appointment by Trump) are lying or making false assumptions? Tell me again who is the one showing confirmation bias here?
Given that the day before, Trump had asked for 'a favor,' the implication was Trump wanted to know from Sondland if he was getting what he'd asked for. But you're welcome to believe otherwise.
Not everybody can be as objective as you, Crazy.
Ambassador Taylor reported having discussions with Zelensky's staff about the hold up so unless you believe Taylor is lying, it's been established that the Ukrainians knew their aid package was being held up by the White House.
It is true that we don't know that the Biden investigation announcement was the explicit reason for reaching out to CNN and setting a firm date only to turn around and cancel it but the dates of Zelensky's actions don't appear coincidental.
I agree!
There was a "room full of people" listening on a speaker phone. We have Col. Vindman's first hand testimony but most of them report directly to Trump and have declined to talk about it.
Why is that, Crazy? And why not release the OFFICIAL audio tape of the call? If everything was as 'perfect' as Trump claims, these 'rumors' and 'third-hand accounts' get cleared up immediately the impeachment inquiry comes to an abrupt end.
Only rumor? The transcript memo begins by stating THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT.
Three Ambassadors directly involved in these dealings (two appointment by Trump) are lying or making false assumptions? Tell me again who is the one showing confirmation bias here?
Given that the day before, Trump had asked for 'a favor,' the implication was Trump wanted to know from Sondland if he was getting what he'd asked for. But you're welcome to believe otherwise.
Not everybody can be as objective as you, Crazy.
I agree!
So where do you fall on your opinion of trump if he isn't impeached? Does it change at all?
My opinion of Trump is that he is an incompetent, blowhard buffoon.
If he survives a Senate trial, so be it. It means more crossing our fingers and praying to God he doesn't pull too many more batsh*t crazy stunts that hurts our country before he gets his old senile butt kicked out of office.
My favorite part of this thread is you people thinking literal inbred morons will be swayed by facts 
Face it, if someone is so stupid they are still defending Trump im 2019 literally nothing you say will change their mind.
Fun popcorn thread tho.
Face it, if someone is so stupid they are still defending Trump im 2019 literally nothing you say will change their mind.
Fun popcorn thread tho.
I can't help myself. I keep thinking to myself that at some point common sense will kick in and I'll hear, "Yeeeeah, you're right, this Trump stuff IS batsh*t crazy."
the orange man is soo bad he has these people twisting their stories to fit whatever narrative of the day. they dont even know how to be consistent.
Democrats: if ukraine investigates Biden it may risk bipartisan agreement on our relationship with ukraine.
Also Democrats: we need to investigate trump even if creates a partisan nature regarding Ukraine
Democrats: investigating Biden is inappropriate because he is a presidential candidate.
Also democrats: it doesn't matter if trump is running for president, we must investigate him.
Also Democrats: we need to investigate trump even if creates a partisan nature regarding Ukraine
Democrats: investigating Biden is inappropriate because he is a presidential candidate.
Also democrats: it doesn't matter if trump is running for president, we must investigate him.
Vindman said that not Democrats.
Is this heresay or are we on another talking point today?
if it werent for double standards, the democrats wouldnt have any. they have (d)ifferent standards.
dems: roy moore was very very bad.
also dems: va dems elect convicted pedophile
dems: black face is bad
also dems: va governor "coonman" is totally ok with black face or kkk and va attorney gen black face is ok too. dont forget obama endorsed the black face pm to the north.
dems: sexual assualt bad #metoo
also dems: va lt governor is ok
So the NSC doesn't have to answer to the president, doesn't have to answer to the committee, and doesn't have to plead the 5th if they don't want to answer a question. I guess the state dept is not just a coequal branch of government, there are no checks and balances to hold them to account.
You have GOT to be kidding.
Nunes spent his valuable time asking the witnesses about Biden crap they had no way of knowing about and whether they had spoken to the press. Not one word about the nature of the Presidential impeachment inquiry.
We need to investigate Biden and maybe the Gore kids.
Vindman was clearly dodging the question about whether he had knowledge of anyone in the NSC talking to the media. Nunes gave him the option of pleading the 5th if he didn't want to answer, which would have ended it but instead Schiff and vindmans lawyer stepped in and said that he doesn't have to answer the question. Nunes pointed out that this committee is exactly who he should answer to, and Vindman deferred. It looked really bad for him.
All Nunes and Castor use are conspiracy theories , GOP has nothing
Vindman and his family moved to a military base for their safety from the maga nuts
Vindman and his family moved to a military base for their safety from the maga nuts
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Adam Schiff hawked outright lies and total conspiracy for 2 years to the public claiming to have "seen" collusion evidence to drum up support THEN for impeachment and yet here you are saying this.
You please the 5th if you don't want to incriminate yourself, there was no accusation of criminal activity by Vindman. His lawyer did the right thing. The rule was that he couldn't out the whistleblower, he didn't want to be involved in that, rightfully so.
Vindman didn't dodge ANYTHING. The Lt. Col. DID answer the question once it was clarified whether he had knowledge of 'any individual' (in the NSC or not) talking to the media. He said NO.
Go ahead and smear a Lt Col with honorable service and question his ‘loyalty’ ...the GOP is using dog whistle conspiracy theories about his family coming here as immigrants ..so on brand but nothing will change your mind on how pathetic current Republicans are
Adam Schiff hawked outright lies and total conspiracy for 2 years to the public claiming to have "seen" collusion evidence to drum up support THEN for impeachment and yet here you are saying this.
Smearing lifelong public servants for a con man that wasn’t even Republican his entire adult life
