Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

You're not part of that "we" Kemosabe. 

 

And if the "we" ever rid PPP of asswipes, the entire board would be gone. 

 

I don't now about 'we,' but you know what I would like? 

 

I would like people who post on this board to stick to one username. Just pick one and stick with it.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Ask yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot, would 17 witnesses speaking under oath against Obama been enough to prove anything to you.  And please stop with Zelensky said he felt no pressure.  We both know he had no choice

 

So which of the 7 or 8 defensible positions are you taking?  And, is THE truth more important to you or would it be better for the Repubs to find a good defensible position regardless of the truth?

 

As Tom said, if 17 witnesses came forward about Obama say they have no actual knowledge of wrongdoing, just that they disagree with him (and therefore, he must be doing wrong), you better bet your ass I'd laugh at them just as hard as I'm laughing at the Democrats.

 

As for Zelensky, that is speculative bullschiff based on 'feelz'.

 

I'm interested in provable facts, not some idiots testifying about the interpretations of how they feel about things they heard third-hand.

Edited by Koko78
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

There may be discussion on the Dem side on what to charge and what to call Trump's actions but there is pretty good agreement on what happened.  Trump tried to use the leverage of the pre-appropriated aid to get himself personal favors.  Not just any favors though, favors that would improve his chances in the next election, aka election aid from a foreign government. 

 

Trump himself has clung to a position that everything was perfect, that is true.  His supporters however, knowing his penchant for lying, have settled into  many different positions.  On the Trump defender side, there are about 8 different positions.  7 of those 8 are not really true.  But hey, the economy is good and the Saudis will probably help to elect the same guy you wanted anyway

Funny how morons try to speak for others... piss off

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 


If this is true... :blink: 

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 









 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


If this is true... :blink: 

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 

 

She gets to claim the abuses discovered by Horowitz/Durham/Barr are politically motivated retribution for her "upholding the constitution" when it comes to impeachment. 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Back a few years when the same sources you're citing as "proving" the matter in regards to the Ukraine were SWEARING to you that Trump was a Russian asset who colluded with Putin to steal the election? You mean THAT truth? The one that was pushed, breathlessly (by you and others) for three years despite there being not one drop of truth to the core allegations. Not one? 

 

And since it's been proven, thrice over, that it was entirely fiction -- have you admitted you were had or duped or wrong? 

 

Nope. 


You STILL believe it. 

 

So spare me your reverence for truth. You care not for it. You're a propragandized person who thinks presumption = fact. A useless idiot is what you are. You're not a truth warrior. You've done everything in your power to DENY reality to yourself. 

 

Save that sanctimonious ***** for when you're talking to yourself in the mirror. That's the only audience who'd believe a word of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

She gets to claim the abuses discovered by Horowitz/Durham/Barr are politically motivated retribution for her "upholding the constitution" when it comes to impeachment. 


Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:


Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

 

She makes her money by kicking gov't contracts to her familys' businesses. One such example:

 

And (likely) selling out to China and the Mexican PRI like the rest of the CA dems. 

  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


If this is true... :blink: 

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 
 

i dunno, she must be getting senile.

 

what she has effectively done, is put them in a no win situation. if they vote to impeach, they run the risk of alienating voters in those districts that Dems narrowly won. if those Dems from those districts vote to not impeach and Trump is ultimately not impeached, then the Repubs get to claim bi-partisan support for the president. lose lose for the Dems, win win for the Repubs. 

 

this is exactly why i refer often to them as the Donner Party.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

something about cartels?

Edited by Foxx
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

 

Adding this to what has already been mentioned...Pelosi's son had his hand in the Ukraine cookie jar. Queued up below for a brief overview:

 

 

Also, you can watch from about the 1 minute mark to hear what else is alleged against him (defrauding property and weaponizing CPS to have her children removed).

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...