Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Just now, Foxx said:

to me, when someone can't recall something, pretty much across the board, not even what he testified to mere weeks ago, says that he is being disingenuous, at best.

 

Why would anyone "remember" something that might implicate them in a crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

It comes straight from the testimony given by people over the past 3 days.

 

They all said the Biden conspiracy was total garbage. 


the other things, since when is US foreign intelligence responsible for investigating domestic crimes?  
 

Wouldn’t the more appropriate approach be to get the attorney general or a special council involved, not people with no authority to investigate and prosecute domestic crimes? 

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

16 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Horseshit.  Simple question.  The reason no one answers I presume is the desire to not be on the record saying it was wrong or impeachable.  If you won't say his actions, if proven, were wrong, there is no sense conversing with you.

EARMUFFS! 
 

I find your language offensive, or would if I did not swear like a longshoreperson myself.  But a reminder that Tibsy, Busey and jrobers may all have a snow day today.

 

 

Let’s put impeachable to the side for a moment, there seems to be ample evidence an objective person would be able to look at the political landscape right now and acknowledge there is no consensus there.  As for “wrong”, are you asking if the overly simplistic fact pattern you outlined is morally wrong, wrong from a legal perspective and are you speaking in political terms?  

For instance, I thought it wrong that Trump inserted himself into the NFL controversy with players kneeling.  I did not think it an impeachable offense.  I also thought it wrong of Trump to make comments about John McCain as a POW, but given the political nature of the dispute between the two, McCains own pettiness and the fact that he was just another fat cat politician engorging himself at public trough, context was important to me. 
 

I would agree that if Trump was a Russian spy, working in the interests of the Russians, to destroy our country as suggested by many of your people, that would constitute an impeachable offense and I would consider it “wrong”. 

 

 

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

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

lol, now we know why Schifty wanted the recess. to spin to the cameras. telling, they have nothing.

 

They have nothing?

 

They a first hand witness saying the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all part of a conspiracy to get a foreign government to do a quid pro quo, digging up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a meeting and money that had already been allocated to them by congress. 

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

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

They have nothing?

 

They a first hand witness saying the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all part of a conspiracy to get a foreign government to do a quid pro quo, digging up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a meeting and money that had already been allocated to them by congress. 

 

He admitted he's not a first hand witness to anything of the sort :lol: 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

you know it as well as most here if they are honest with themselves. if they had anything, they would not have to continually to to spin testimony. the testimony would speak for itself. when has a chairman ever come out in the middle of a hearing to tell the public what a witness just said?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxx said:

you know it as well as most here if they are honest with themselves. if they had anything, they would not have to continually to to spin testimony. the testimony would speak for itself. when has a chairman ever come out in the middle of a hearing to tell the public what a witness just said?

 

When has the chairmen been part of a hearing where someone says the President committed a crime? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Foxx said:

you know it as well as most here if they are honest with themselves. if they had anything, they would not have to continually to to spin testimony. the testimony would speak for itself. when has a chairman ever come out in the middle of a hearing to tell the public what a witness just said?

What color is the sky in your world? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

They have nothing?

 

They a first hand witness saying the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all part of a conspiracy to get a foreign government to do a quid pro quo, digging up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a meeting and money that had already been allocated to them by congress. 

you do understand  they testified that the President told them, "no quid pro quo", right. what you are grasping at are conclusions drawn by someone. the facts are that it was stated several times that there was no quid pro quo. we also have others whose opinion was that there was no quid pro quo.

 

be honest and stop being led by your biases.

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

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

They have nothing?

 

They a first hand witness saying the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all part of a conspiracy to get a foreign government to do a quid pro quo, digging up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a meeting and money that had already been allocated to them by congress. 

 

And the AG.  Don't forget, you have to get Barr out of office, too.  So the President, VP, SecState, and AG were all part of the conspiracy.

 

And Kavanaugh. 

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

Stop acting like his interpretation of the situation is not valuable evidence just because it isn’t direct evidence.  Circumstantial evidence can be just as damning.  
 

people who attack the procedural aspects of evidence, and confuse it for substance, are sneaky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Thing is, I'd still sooner trust a guy who says "I came to this conclusion because..." than I would people who say "Well, that's the gossip I've heard!"

 

As long as the first guy can explain the "because..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

When has the chairmen been part of a hearing where someone says the President committed a crime? 

a special investigation? never. please tell me you realize that the chairman has a severe conflict of interest here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

Here Nunes goes with the conspiracy theories.


That's all the GOP has left at this point. 

 

Conspiracy theories like... Trump is an asset of Russia and worked with Putin to steal an election? 

 

You mean that kind of conspiracy theory?

 

The very one Schiff said he had MORE than circumstantial evidence to support it before not one, not two, but THREE federal investigations debunked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

you do understand  they testified that the President told them, "no quid pro quo", right. what you are grasping at are conclusions drawn by someone. the facts are that it was stated several times that there was no quid pro quo. we also have others whose opinion was that there was no quid pro quo.

 

be honest and stop being led by your biases.

 

This isn't even remotely true.

 

Everyone up until now has said they never heard directly it was a quid pro quo. None of them ever had any direct contact with Trump.

 

Sondland had a direct line to Trump, and he has said that it was a quid pro quo. 

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

7 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

They have nothing?

 

They a first hand witness saying the President, Vice President and Secretary of State were all part of a conspiracy to get a foreign government to do a quid pro quo, digging up dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a meeting and money that had already been allocated to them by congress. 

 

giphy.gif?cid=790b7611b6726cc88e1e3c590d

  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

This isn't even remotely true.

 

Everyone up until now has said they never heard directly it was a quid pro quo. None of them ever had any direct contact with Trump.

 

Sondland had a direct line to Trump, and he has said that it was a quid pro quo. 

 

... He said Trump never said that directly to him, and that he presumed it. 


Difference. 

 

But that requires you to be honest ;) 

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

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

... He said Trump never said that directly to him, and that he presumed it. 


Difference. 

 

But that requires you to be honest ;) 

 

I think its pretty obvious at this point he only sees what he wants to see

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

×
×
  • Create New...