If they really start Saturday I might do some chores around the house.4stringAg said:
Going to be very interesting when Trumps team gets to present their case!
***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****
964,345 Views |
9220 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
Zemira said:
I predict afternoon something drops outside of the Senate so Dems have No chance to cover in opening statements. And we hear from Republicans Saturday.
Giuliani's been promising bombshells since May. All he's done is get an innocent ambassador fired, get himself under federal investigation, his associates arrested, and his president client impeached.
If he had something good he should have dropped it 4 months ago.
Perhaps. Have you ever played poker?
John Maplethorpe said:Zemira said:
I predict afternoon something drops outside of the Senate so Dems have No chance to cover in opening statements. And we hear from Republicans Saturday.
Giuliani's been promising bombshells since May. All he's done is get an innocent ambassador fired, get himself under federal investigation, his associates arrested, and his president client impeached.
If he had something good he should have dropped it 4 months ago.
The new Ukrainian President didn't like the US ambassador either. She was cozy with the old guard, you know the one that was so "corrupt". She got fired. Boo hoo.
His associate was arrested as retaliation for poking around asking the wrong questions.
And impeachment was bound to happen with or without gulliani. I think he just helped Trump pick the battleground to fight it on. (Ukraine instead of Russia)
Not so sure about that. Parnas is smarmy. He also apparently arrived out of nowhere to suddenly be a big donor.Quote:
His associate was arrested as retaliation for poking around asking the wrong questions.
When someone just pops up out of the blue, it is always best to be skeptical.
aggiehawg said:Not so sure about that. Parnas is smarmy. He also apparently arrived out of nowhere to suddenly be a big donor.Quote:
His associate was arrested as retaliation for poking around asking the wrong questions.
When someone just pops up out of the blue, it is always best to be skeptical.
My opinion: Parnas was a known political tool (like manafort) whose crimes were being ignored as a way to leverage his allegiance to certain factions. He gets out of line, the Ukraine/US establishment drops the hammer.
But if his rise was as meteoric as you claim, he might be more of an Avanatti, an idiot scum bag who got way over his skiis politically.
All I know is they timed the arrest of Parnas with the "impeachment inquiry". It was coordinated.
Innocent ambassador? That ***** isn't entitled to that job. She was fired and she should have been. The mistake was that she wasn't fired on January 20, 2017. Her actions before and since her firing justify it 1000%. She's a liar and a *****.John Maplethorpe said:Zemira said:
I predict afternoon something drops outside of the Senate so Dems have No chance to cover in opening statements. And we hear from Republicans Saturday.
Giuliani's been promising bombshells since May. All he's done is get an innocent ambassador fired, get himself under federal investigation, his associates arrested, and his president client impeached.
If he had something good he should have dropped it 4 months ago.
Last night I got to go to the Senate and watch the Senate Trial of President Trump. It was very surreal to see all these people I knew but had never seen in real life. Here are my thoughts:
Schiff looks exactly like he does on tv. Wouldn't buy a car from him.
Bernie looks old; he had trouble pushing the door open.
Scheme was kicked back in his chair having a great time.
Romney was at the back of the room standing up. He is either very tall or others around him are short.
Cruz would get up to go talk to someone every now and then.
Cornyn has gotten really grey.
I didn't get to see Kampala or Cory, they were right underneath where I was sitting. I did get to see the back of Elizabeth Warrens's head.
I felt sorry for Chief Justice Roberts, he had to sit there since 10 am and until 10 pm and preside.
Schiff looks exactly like he does on tv. Wouldn't buy a car from him.
Bernie looks old; he had trouble pushing the door open.
Scheme was kicked back in his chair having a great time.
Romney was at the back of the room standing up. He is either very tall or others around him are short.
Cruz would get up to go talk to someone every now and then.
Cornyn has gotten really grey.
I didn't get to see Kampala or Cory, they were right underneath where I was sitting. I did get to see the back of Elizabeth Warrens's head.
I felt sorry for Chief Justice Roberts, he had to sit there since 10 am and until 10 pm and preside.
Quote:
2017. Her actions before and since her firing justify it 1000%. She's a liar and a *****.
Such as....? What evidence is there for this claim?
Right. She should have just been fired as an ambassador, period.John Maplethorpe said:Quote:
She was fired and she should have been. The mistake was that she wasn't fired on January 20,
She was sent to Ukraine by Trump.
She believes that she is entitled to an ambassadorship. She also believes that she sets Ukraine policy for the U.S. BUUUUUUULLLLLL***** She should shut her trap and go away. She is a disgrace.Quote:Such as....? What evidence is there for this claim?Quote:
2017. Her actions before and since her firing justify it 1000%. She's a liar and a *****.
What did she lie about? What evidence is there for this?
The "she hated Trump" narrative appears to have been a Giuliani invention.
The "she hated Trump" narrative appears to have been a Giuliani invention.
Yovanovitch was appointed by Obama. She was an Obama era holdover. She arrived in Kyiv in August 2016, three months before the election.Ellis Wyatt said:Right. She should have just been fired as an ambassador, period.John Maplethorpe said:Quote:
She was fired and she should have been. The mistake was that she wasn't fired on January 20,
She was sent to Ukraine by Trump.She believes that she is entitled to an ambassadorship. She also believes that she sets Ukraine policy for the U.S. BUUUUUUULLLLLL***** She should shut her trap and go away. She is a disgrace.Quote:Such as....? What evidence is there for this claim?Quote:
2017. Her actions before and since her firing justify it 1000%. She's a liar and a *****.
Zelensky told Trump that Yovanovitch was friendlier to his predecessor, Poroshenko. You know the corrupt guy Zelensky has just shellacked in the elections?John Maplethorpe said:
What did she lie about? What evidence is there for this?
The "she hated Trump" narrative appears to have been a Giuliani invention.
Ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the President AND the host country. If Zelensky was not comfortable working with her for whatever reason, she is recalled. Period.
What evidence is there for the claim she lied? That she hated Trump?
In the call Zelensky mentioned "you were the first one" to tell me she was "bad". Unlikely he knew much about her when she was fired. Trump wanted her gone because Giuliani told him to get rid of her.
The idea she favored Poroshenko is flimsy. Another likely fabrication of Parnas/Giuliani. See the tapes that are leaking out today.
In the call Zelensky mentioned "you were the first one" to tell me she was "bad". Unlikely he knew much about her when she was fired. Trump wanted her gone because Giuliani told him to get rid of her.
The idea she favored Poroshenko is flimsy. Another likely fabrication of Parnas/Giuliani. See the tapes that are leaking out today.
aggiehawg said:
Around 40 minutes in
LINK
It won't get much attention because it's nonsense. They've given tens of billions more than the US since the revolution. As they should because of the proximity and Ukraine's importance to western Europe.
Did the White House ask the EU to divert aid to military uses? Did Europe suddenly make a new commitment on September 9th? No.
Doesn't matter if you think it's a stupid reason, it wasn't for "corrupt personal gains". Aka policy disagreement which is NOT an impeachable offense.
Case closed.
Case closed.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.hbtheduce said:
Doesn't matter if you think it's a stupid reason, it wasn't for "corrupt personal gains". Aka policy disagreement which is NOT an impeachable offense.
Case closed.
So is Trump going to get evicted or not?
Kanyes psychiatrist said:
So is Trump going to get evicted or not?
5 years.
"I'm sure that won't make a bit of difference for those of you who enjoy a baseless rage over the decisions of a few teenagers."
John Maplethorpe said:
What evidence is there for the claim she lied? That she hated Trump?
In the call Zelensky mentioned "you were the first one" to tell me she was "bad". Unlikely he knew much about her when she was fired. Trump wanted her gone because Giuliani told him to get rid of her.
The idea she favored Poroshenko is flimsy. Another likely fabrication of Parnas/Giuliani. See the tapes that are leaking out today.
What part of the president can fire her at ANY point for ANY reason DONT YOU GET??
That's what I figured. Don't know why libs think he's going anywhere. I guess they don't want to acknowledge their heroes are all pedos and traitors.aginlakeway said:Kanyes psychiatrist said:
So is Trump going to get evicted or not?
5 years.
Anything happening today?
GE said:
Anything happening today?
Today is The Lord's day. No sham impeachment this day.
Day 2 of defense in Monday.
I do have a question. Why did the Democrats bring up all the subjects they want to suppress?
Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
DNC server
HRC server
Crowd strike
Etc.
Aren't you supposed to keep quiet on the things you don't want the defense to bring up? Doesn't that get it into the record and allow an opening for the defense to call those people or present evidence in those things?
Maybe not, and I watch too much TV or something. But if true, they are opening themselves up.
Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
DNC server
HRC server
Crowd strike
Etc.
Aren't you supposed to keep quiet on the things you don't want the defense to bring up? Doesn't that get it into the record and allow an opening for the defense to call those people or present evidence in those things?
Maybe not, and I watch too much TV or something. But if true, they are opening themselves up.
will25u said:
I do have a question. Why did the Democrats bring up all the subjects they want to suppress?
Joe Biden
Hunter Biden
DNC server
HRC server
Crowd strike
Etc.
Aren't you supposed to keep quiet on the things you don't want the defense to bring up? Doesn't that get it into the record and allow an opening for the defense to call those people or present evidence in those things?
Maybe not, and I watch too much TV or something. But if true, they are opening themselves up.
Yes
Featured Stories
See All
31:28
12h ago
3.5k
Offense in Review feat. Stephen McGee: Texas A&M 21, Arkansas 17
by Billy Liucci
34:50
15h ago
7.1k
Three starts in, Reed continues to make 'positive strides forward'
by Olin Buchanan
Brauny's Best: Highlighting top high school performances from Week 5
by Ryan Brauninger
2:44
21h ago
6.3k