Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

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...