Jump to content

The Impeachment Trial of President Donald J. Trump


Nanker

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Picard wears silk robes

 

Kirk > Picard

 

  Kirk beat the Gorn with a makeshift cannon.  Picard would try to negotiate with the Gorn well after the Gorn was pummeling Picard into the ground.  In any event I am surprised that anything resembling an alpha male captain would be allowed in 2020.  "We must continue to negotiate with the Klingons.  Counselor Troi, do you sense any hostility?" would be the final sentences uttered by a 2020 captain before his ship was blown into pieces.

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

https://www.redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/01/26/772057/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=772057&utm_content=0&utm_campaign=PostPromoterPro

 

Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler (NY), Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and  Zoe Lofgren (CA), who have excoriated the President in the Senate trial over withholding aid to Ukraine during a time of war, all said “nay” to House Resolution 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act, which included the funding for Ukraine.

The video below shows them railing against Trump. Jeffries tells the Senators, “Ukraine is a fragile democracy under relentless attack from Russian-backed separatists. They desperately…need…our…support.”

 

“Back in 2018, there was the National Defense Authorization Act. It had $250 million in aid to Ukraine and Nadler, Lofgren and Jeffries, all of whom are impeachment managers, voted against that legislation. And last year, on December 11, Nadler voted against $300 million in aid. That was two days after he chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment and a week before he led the effort on the House floor to impeach the President of the United States. 

 

The hypocrisy of the Left on full display that their media minions hide to mislead America.

 

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

57 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Well, on the bright side, it's not like the impeachment farce has anything to do with democracy. He won't be missing anything (you know, other than the continued dismantling of their bullcrap.)

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

8 minutes ago, Foxx said:

right out of the Kavanaugh playbook. did we really expect anything different? the Dems are going to get crushed by the WHC defense so they needed something to distract and whala, Bolton to the rescue.

 

I still say, so f***ing what?

I find it absolutely preposterous that a POTUS is not allowed to investigate possible corruption within our government. And during that investigation, protocol demands either those nations leaders communicate the investigations or the AGs work it out together. 

 

How well would an investigation work out of we just sent the FBI in unannounced to another country?

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

15 minutes ago, Foxx said:

right out of the Kavanaugh playbook. did we really expect anything different? the Dems are going to get crushed by the WHC defense so they needed something to distract and whala, Bolton to the rescue.

Imagine that.  A secret manuscript hits on a Sunday night.  

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

1 hour ago, Gary Busey said:

 

Great.  Dems have now relied on Trump' scumbag lawyer, a lifelong Republican FBI agent, an ambulance chaser porn star lawyer, and now one of the biggest neocons of the Bush administration to take down Trump.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

 

Good to hear because at some point we have to hold politicians accountable for using their influence to enrich their families.  We also have to hold aid recipients accountable for  using aid funds for their intended purposes only. 

Edited by keepthefaith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Their "evidence" is a tell-all book…............?

 

 

3 hours ago, Gary Busey said:

 

 

 

If it is what the NYT represents, it was weeks after the call when the idea of tying aid to investigating Biden corruption was first floated.

 

It destroys the Democrat case, to the extent there ever was one.

 

 

.

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

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Great.  Dems have now relied on Trump' scumbag lawyer, a lifelong Republican FBI agent, an ambulance chaser porn star lawyer, and now one of the biggest neocons of the Bush administration to take down Trump.

politics makes strange bedfellows

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, /dev/null said:

politics makes strange bedfellows

An enemy of my enemy is my friend I guess, but maybe do some background work before putting your faith in people you would generally despise.  This is a cash grab by Bolton for his book.  He could've come out with this information a long time ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Great.  Dems have now relied on Trump' scumbag lawyer, a lifelong Republican FBI agent, an ambulance chaser porn star lawyer, and now one of the biggest neocons of the Bush administration to take down Trump.

who was it who picked such an upstanding citizen to be the National Security Advisor????? ...Trump sure knows how to pick em don't he LOL......can Bolton be a scumbag and be telling the truth regarding his ex-boss? I think his testimony won't matter (If he is even allowed to and even if he is telling the truth) the real jury will speak during the next presidential  election.by way of .American voters .that's the way I see it. Trump supporters are cultish in their devotion to him this new relevation wont change a thing in the senates impeachment trial. Nada zippo not a thing. Minds are already made up along party lines I'd be shocked if this amounts to anything.

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

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

 Trump supporters are cultish in their devotion to him this new relevation wont change a thing in the senates impeachment trial.

 

 

You mean like Obama supporters and their "cultish" support? Or the "cultish" support that Bush supporters had for GW? Or like the "cultish" support that Clinton supporters had for Bill? Or for Reagan? What about the Bernie, Warren, Hillary, etc "cultists"?

 

Why do you find it necessary to describe peoples' support for Trump as "cultish in their devotion"?

 

Does that make it easier for you to wave off their support for Trump as being something irrational?

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

14 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

You mean like Obama supporters and their "cultish" support? Or the "cultish" support that Bush supporters had for GW? Or like the "cultish" support that Clinton supporters had for Bill? Or for Reagan? What about the Bernie, Warren, Hillary, etc "cultists"?

 

Why do you find it necessary to describe peoples' support for Trump as "cultish in their devotion"?

 

Does that make it easier for you to wave off their support for Trump as being something irrational?

I find it necessary to call them cultish because my opinion is his supporters wouldn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part even if proven beyond any doubt it existed there would be some sort of rationalization why  which in my mind is irrational Yes.

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

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

I find it necessary to call them cultish because my opinion is his supporters wouldn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part even if proven beyond any doubt it existed there would be some sort of rationalization why  which in my mind is irrational Yes.

 

Have you actually discussed this with any Trump supporters to the point where your opinion deems it necessary to label them cultists? It seems to me that your use of the word "rationalization" describes your thought process perfectly.

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

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

Have you actually discussed this with any Trump supporters to the point where your opinion deems it necessary to label them cultists? It seems to me that your use of the word "rationalization" describes your thought process perfectly.

me thinks you protest too much not a single peep regarding any other point of my OP but one word in regards to his followers triggered you....interesting

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

8 minutes ago, Margarita said:

I find it necessary to call them cultish because my opinion is his supporters wouldn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part even if proven beyond any doubt it existed there would be some sort of rationalization why  which in my mind is irrational Yes.

 

Question: Have you acknowledged the fact that the Russian collusion/conspiracy narrative was a complete hoax, fomented and pushed by the previous administration while they abused the massive powers of surveillance and the intelligence communities in an effort to overturn a legitimate election? 

 

Trump didn't do that. Obama did. 

 

That's not theory. It's proven fact. Have you acknowledged it, or accepted it? Have you personally held accountable the news sources who lied to your face (knowingly) for three plus years in an effort to divide the country, not report truth? 

 

Or nah? 

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

1 minute ago, Margarita said:

me thinks you protest too much not a single peep regarding any other point of my OP but one word in regards to his followers triggered you....interesting

 

I'm more interested in getting to the bottom of your prejudice. You paint with a very broad brush and attempt to justify it by calling it opinion.

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

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Question: Have you acknowledged the fact that the Russian collusion/conspiracy narrative was a complete hoax, fomented and pushed by the previous administration while they abused the massive powers of surveillance and the intelligence communities in an effort to overturn a legitimate election? 

 

Trump didn't do that. Obama did. 

 

That's not theory. It's proven fact. Have you acknowledged it, or accepted it? Have you personally held accountable the news sources who lied to your face (knowingly) for three plus years in an effort to divide the country, not report truth? 

 

Or nah? 

**eyerolls***  laughs....you all have a nice night .

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

49 minutes ago, Margarita said:

who was it who picked such an upstanding citizen to be the National Security Advisor????? ...Trump sure knows how to pick em don't he LOL......can Bolton be a scumbag and be telling the truth regarding his ex-boss? I think his testimony won't matter (If he is even allowed to and even if he is telling the truth) the real jury will speak during the next presidential  election.by way of .American voters .that's the way I see it. Trump supporters are cultish in their devotion to him this new relevation wont change a thing in the senates impeachment trial. Nada zippo not a thing. Minds are already made up along party lines I'd be shocked if this amounts to anything.

I didn't vote for Trump and won't in the next election.  I don't like him and most of his domestic policies.  Bolton's a grifter who's playing the Resistance for profit.

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

2 minutes ago, Margarita said:

**eyerolls***  laughs....you all have a nice night .


So which one is cultish and unwilling to accept reality? 
 

I can prove what I said — you cannot prove the inverse. The media spent three years telling you what was false was actually true — while calling trump a liar. 
 

Cognitive dissonance hurts. But you can work through it if you’re willing to be honest and reassess what you think you know. 

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

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:


So which one is cultish and unwilling to accept reality? 
 

I can prove what I said — you cannot prove the inverse. The media spent three years telling you what was false was actually true — while calling trump a liar. 
 

Cognitive dissonance hurts. But you can work through it if you’re willing to be honest and reassess what you think you know. 


Good luck with that. From previous posts, it appears you are trying to have a discussion with a person who is all about “feelings.”
 

 

Edited by Buffalo_Gal
  • Like (+1) 6
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Margarita said:

I find it necessary to call them cultish because my opinion is his supporters wouldn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part even if proven beyond any doubt it existed there would be some sort of rationalization why  which in my mind is irrational Yes.

 

So, like Obama supporters.

48 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:


Good luck with that. From previous posts, it appears you are trying to have a discussion with a person who is all about “feelings”. 
 

 

 

Yes. "She" is.

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

7 hours ago, Azalin said:

 

Have you actually discussed this with any Trump supporters to the point where your opinion deems it necessary to label them cultists? It seems to me that your use of the word "rationalization" describes your thought process perfectly.

   He probably picked it up off of his favorite Democratic talking point website.  Cultist is just another way to smear Trump and his supporters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...