Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

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

 

... So you're just admitting you never watched ANY of the Trump/Russia hearings :lol: 

Posted
1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Probably the most necessary and proper impeachment of them all. Trump is worse than Nixon for sure. This is way worse than lying about BJ and AJ was politically impeached. 

 

Trump is just a straight up criminal 

Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted

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

Posted
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..."

Posted
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.

Posted
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?

Posted
6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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

 

 

 

exactly what i commented.

  • Like (+1) 3
Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted
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
Posted
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
×
×
  • Create New...