Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
godzilla

It's Official, the Trump-Russia Investigation was a Partisan Witch Hunt

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...he wanted to get re-elected.

Zing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

americans caught directly participating in terror activities against the US and their allies and killed when in the company of foreign nationals carrying out those armed aggressive activities =  the withholding of military aide to a helpless country at the hands of terror aggressors unless they manufacture political talking points against political opponents.

your logic is absolutely clear... you have no logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2019 at 4:03 PM, godzilla said:

 

 

On 11/7/2019 at 11:00 AM, godzilla said:

well that a whole other topic to itself isn't it... the Republicans biggest supporters are old white male country folk. you know... hillbillies. everyone know how smart dem folks is!

Hey fella, it looks like you have some racism in you? Calling people "old white male" is racist. I bet you would not dare call some old black men, old black men, now would you? 

 

On 11/5/2019 at 4:03 PM, godzilla said:

No impeachment coming so get over it. Pelosi and Schiff the shuckster have both gone mad in their democratic heads. Trump has been and no doubt is surrounded by traitors to America. That is why so many in his cabinet have been fired or had to resign because they were found out to be anti-Trump. John Bolton and Rex Tillerson were not on board with Trump's program. They had to part ways with Trump. Good riddance too bad rubbish.  

On 11/5/2019 at 4:03 PM, godzilla said:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Yes...he wanted to get re-elected.

Why do democrats like Pelosi and Schiff keep continuing to try and make total assholes of themselves every day? Why do they keep thinking that they will be able to impeach Trump on something? Everything that they have tried so far to try and impeach Trump keeps blowing up in their dumbo insane democratic faces. There is not a thing about this made up Ukraine fiasco that will ever get Trump impeached. Trump did nothing wrong with Ukraine that can get him impeached. The ones that need to be impeached here is Pelosi and Schiff. They should be arrested and charged with the wasting of millions of American tax dollars and all for nothing. I personally believe that the people in the democratic party have truly gone bonkers in the head. Just saying. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boom, Sondland says him believing the holding up aid was about the Biden's was just his own impression, he never got a clear answer from the administration at any point in time, so he's just guessing. His guess is as good as anyone else's, he's got hearsay and speculation, yet he's the star witness.

Lulz what a clown show, only Giuliani throwing Trump under the bus can save you now Demohacks.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, godzilla said:

not sure what you're watching... Sondland just showed Rs to be a bunch of liars.

Not sure what you're watching, but Sondland has nothing but his opinion to suggest there was quid pro quo to investigate Biden, and even Sondland says there are other possibilities and he's just speculating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but the entire administration was in on the emails and correspondence. and no one ever said "hey, what you talkin about"! Trump plays the old organized crime boss thing... insulate myself with people who I will force not to talk. but whats happening is that as people start to get thrown under the bus then they don't go without peeling away at that onion. Sondland just threw Perry, Pence and Pompeo (the three Ps) under the bus.

irrespective, there is no way that a rational person can say that this was a good day for Trump. it sucked bad.

Edited by godzilla
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Boges said:

Mike Pompeo has huge exposure now. Will he ride or die with Trump? 

Seems like they still have options... go after Sondland's memory since he changed his story.  Burn America's Mayor on a pyre.... none of them honourable but these guys give spiders and snakes the willies.

They actually asked Sondham, who bought his ambassador job, if he understood Quid Pro Quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Seems like they still have options... go after Sondland's memory since he changed his story.  Burn America's Mayor on a pyre.... none of them honourable but these guys give spiders and snakes the willies.

They actually asked Sondham, who bought his ambassador job, if he understood Quid Pro Quo.

There's still a witness that testifies to the Trump call with Sondland. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sondland answered the direct and concise question of whether or not military aid was dependent upon the investigations and he said that he didn't know if that was the case or not. That means that he wasn't ever told that was the case. Zelensky also said that he wasn't aware of the military aid being dependent on any reciprication either. 

Sondland clearly stated that Zelensky had to "announce the investigations to get a meeting with Trump". That's absolutely not the same as "Zelensky had to announce the investigations in order to receive the aid".

Schiff asks Sondland if "he had to announce those two investigations if that official act was going to take place" and Sondland said "yes", because he thought that Schiff was talking about the meeting. Schiff was intentionally vague and misleading, and he knows that he got a good soundbyte, but that's why they call him Schifty. He's not there to get the truth, he's there because he's the biggest douchebag in North America.

Now the MSM is out there saying that they have their "Richard Dean" moment, what they are doing is splicing together their "Kent Brockman" moment. The Dems and their media have officially hit Rock Bottom:

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/watch-top-moments-from-sondland-testimony-at-impeachment-hearing-73769541843

There can be an honest debate about whether or not Trump should be allowed to pressure Zelensky into re-opening the investigation that Biden pressured the Ukraine to end, but let's remember that Trump used a personal meeting as leverage, Biden was the one who held up assistance from the United States government as leverage.

Edited by WestCanMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, godzilla said:

but the entire administration was in on the emails and correspondence. and no one ever said "hey, what you talkin about"! Trump plays the old organized crime boss thing... insulate myself with people who I will force not to talk. but whats happening is that as people start to get thrown under the bus then they don't go without peeling away at that onion. Sondland just threw Perry, Pence and Pompeo (the three Ps) under the bus.

irrespective, there is no way that a rational person can say that this was a good day for Trump. it sucked bad.

It was a good day for Trump, Sondland had no evidence that Trump ordered him to tell the Ukranian's it was quid pro quo, he just guessed that was what Trump wanted. The Dems were looking to hang their hat on Trump having ordered Sondland to tell them that, when he told him the exact opposite. Now their star witness came up a dud, and they have to hang their hat on impressions based on hearsay and speculation.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Boges said:

There's still a witness that testifies to the Trump call with Sondland. 

Yeah and they do not refute what Trump said. They have no evidence that Trump told him he wanted a quid pro quo involving the Biden's and that was the only reason for the quid pro quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Yeah and they do not refute what Trump said. They have no evidence that Trump told him he wanted a quid pro quo involving the Biden's and that was the only reason for the quid pro quo.

So testimony is completely irrelevant? 

The only thing that matters is transcripts and documents, of which the WH and State Department are refusing to release. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Boges said:

So testimony is completely irrelevant? 

The only thing that matters is transcripts and documents, of which the WH and State Department are refusing to release. How convenient. :rolleyes:

Testimony that is based on opinion rather than facts is completely irrelevant. Gossip is not evidence.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

Testimony that is based on opinion rather than facts is completely irrelevant. Gossip is not evidence.

I disagree with that sentiment. With testimony, you're giving an honest recounting of what you experienced, not an opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Boges said:

I disagree with that sentiment. With testimony, you're giving an honest recounting of what you experienced, not an opinion. 

Except that is not what is happening, much of their testimony is based on their opinions, not what they experienced. The Democrats "bombshells" all focus on the opinions of those giving the testimony, not on what they experienced, which is why no one cares about this whole impeachment charade and no one is watching it.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Except that is not what is happening, much of their testimony is based on their opinions, not what they experienced. The Democrats "bombshells" all focus on the opinions of those giving the testimony, not on what they experienced, which is why no one cares about this whole impeachment charade and no one is watching it.

The David Holmes testimony today will be based on direct recounting of an event. Sondlandly most certainly testified to what he experienced. Lt Col Vindman testified to being on the July 25th call. 

It's funny, his testimony that Trump has "I want nothing from Ukraine, No Quid Pro Quo!" Is seen as accurate an exculpatory testimony. Even though the timeline easily suggests Trump was covering his tracks. He probably didn't know what a Quid Pro Quo was up until that point. 

Yet other recounts are dismissed as hearsay or simply opinions. Very convenient. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Boges said:

The David Holmes testimony today will be based on direct recounting of an event. Sondlandly most certainly testified to what he experienced. Lt Col Vindman testified to being on the July 25th call. 

It's funny, his testimony that Trump has "I want nothing from Ukraine, No Quid Pro Quo!" Is seen as accurate an exculpatory testimony. Even though the timeline easily suggests Trump was covering his tracks. He probably didn't know what a Quid Pro Quo was up until that point. 

Yet other recounts are dismissed as hearsay or simply opinions. Very convenient. 

Holmes is testifying to the contents of call he overheard but was not apart of. Sondland testified as to his experience that Trump said he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo, that is the event Holmes will be recalling. Vindman did not testify to hearing Trump demand a quid pro quo, that was his interpretation, not based on evidence but perception. Just like everyone else who read the transcript, Vindman said it was an accurate depiction of the conversation, his opinion on the matter is as relevant as anyone else not on the call, which is not relevant.

I dismiss these things because it's all an attempt to read Trump's mind, not actual evidence of Trump committing a crime that they are recounting.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Holmes is testifying to the contents of call he overheard but was not apart of. Sondland testified as to his experience that Trump said he wanted nothing, no quid pro quo, that is the event Holmes will be recalling. Vindman did not testify to hearing Trump demand a quid pro quo, that was his interpretation, not based on evidence but perception. I dismiss these things because it's all an attempt to read Trump's mind, not actual evidence of Trump committing a crime.

Again a crime is not the bar. It's the abuse of power. It's beyond anyone's reasonable sense of logic to assume anything but the idea that these investigations were political in nature. Just with that, they're inappropriate for a President to ask for. Multiple witnesses, even ones called by the GOP, have testified to that. 

A Quid Pro Quo is always up for interpretation. No one goes around speaking like that. The idea that you need the announcement of a politically motivated investigation to get anything from Trump is a textbook definition of a Quid Pro Quo. Multiple witness have testified that this was their directive. 

If your bar is Trump on Record saying "I want a Quid Pro Quo", that's a laughably high bar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

Again a crime is not the bar. It's the abuse of power. It's beyond anyone's reasonable sense of logic to assume anything but the idea that these investigations were political in nature. Just with that, they're inappropriate for a President to ask for. Multiple witnesses, even ones called by the GOP, have testified to that. 

A Quid Pro Quo is always up for interpretation. No one goes around speaking like that. The idea that you need the announcement of a politically motivated investigation to get anything from Trump is a textbook definition of a Quid Pro Quo. Multiple witness have testified that this was their directive. 

If your bar is Trump on Record saying "I want a Quid Pro Quo", that's a laughably high bar. 

Maladministration is not an impeachable offense. Crime is the bar, high crimes and misdemeanors to be exact.

No witnesses have testified that Trump directed them to push a quid pro quo that was only about going after his political opponents, they have testified that they think that is what Trump wanted, but not that he directed them to push for that.

Edited by Yzermandius19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...