***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****

993,292 Views | 9220 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Hirono really should be in a straight jacket in a padded cell. She is certifiably insane!
Joe Exotic
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I think she's sane. Her problem is she's just a moron.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
txagbear said:

And most everyone paying attention would know that if the Dems were over target for a solid reason to impeach Trump, many in the GOP would stand in line to sign up for it.



lol


So what you are saying is this wasn't a solid reason.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
MetoliusAg said:

Aaaand another shoe drops. Gonna need a bigger scorecard to keep track of all the corruption going on with Rudy, Trump, the GOP, and their many grifts.




Oh you were wrong again.
Cartographer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Send in Tulsi. At least she understands the issues and arguments placed in front of her.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Prognightmare said:


We can't ever let these people gain control again
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
captkirk said:

Prognightmare said:


We can't ever let these people gain control again


Right, the Democrat's media monopoly and poisoned justice system has given them the ability to act with impunity turning them into tyrants. We now know the media will cover for them no matter how blatant the corruption.
ProgN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
captkirk said:

Prognightmare said:


We can't ever let these people gain control again



Exactly! Here's a small sample of the dumbasses I encounter regularly.
will25u
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I want to actually know what policy Trump has implemented that is so horrible?
redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Banning all Muslims and separating immigrant families, duh
houag80
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The "slashing" of the three areas that ******* claims......did not happen. Twitter is a cesspool.
ProgN
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Proved what case Gary?
aggieforester05
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John Maplethorpe said:

Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote


They failed to prove intent was to influence the election. What is so hard to understand about this?

Any president would be justified and obligated when such blatant corruption has been identified.

This would have been a back page story at best if it were a Democrat president.
Agvet12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John Maplethorpe said:

Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote


Maybe if the house did a better job in presenting facts, the witnesses used in the sham would've been more reliable. But y'all went with "mah feelings" instead of facts. Sucks to suck loser. Enjoy 5 more years.
backintexas2013
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You lost Gary. All three of your usernames lost.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess that means he's wrong, wrong, and wrong.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggieforester05 said:

John Maplethorpe said:

Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote


They failed to prove intent was to influence the election. What is so hard to understand about this?




The managers proved the case even with the unprecedented cover up ongoing. Republicans just wanted it over with. "Not impeach/remove worthy" is the only honest defense.

Is anybody but Trump saying "no QPQ" anymore? They all know he lied.
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sorry Gary but the house managers proved nothing but their incompetence, but you already knew that.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Perfect call. Nothing wrong. But don't do it again.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rockdoc said:

Sorry Gary but the house managers proved nothing but Trump's absolute hilarious guilt according to Republican jurors, they just don't want to remove him.


FIFY
Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yep, changing posts is the only way you can win. Congrats
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Rockdoc said:

Yep, fixing my posts is the only way they'll make any sense.


You're welcome.

Poopslap bet Bolton's book confirms Trump has been lying?
Zombie Jon Snow
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggieforester05 said:

John Maplethorpe said:

Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote


They failed to prove intent was to influence the election. What is so hard to understand about this?

Any president would be justified and obligated when such blatant corruption has been identified.

This would have been a back page story at best if it were a Democrat president.

Yep. Here's how it plays out with Obama much like his many controversies:


Press: Mr. President we understand you withheld aid from Ukraine and asked them to also investigate possible political corruption there.... can you tell us about this?

Obama: Yes I withheld the aid so they would investigate possible corruption there, but we are planning to release that aid soon and we look forward to working positively with Ukraine as they investigate these matters that may in fact involve political issues here in the US.

Press: One follow-up do you think this is a conflict of interest for you as it involves a different political party candidate that may run against you?

Obama: No. Thanks, you guys have a great day.



And that would be the end of it.

Rockdoc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You poopslapping yourself wouldn't be an improvement.
hairloom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Maplethorpe said:

Rockdoc said:

Yep, fixing my posts is the only way they'll make any sense.


You're welcome.

Poopslap bet Bolton's book confirms Trump has been lying?
you've already proven to be John WELCHER maplethorpe. Why would anyone ever trust your Welching ass again? You've been reduced to etcetera and lot Y levels.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
hairloom said:

John Maplethorpe said:

Rockdoc said:

Yep, fixing my posts is the only way they'll make any sense.


You're welcome.

Poopslap bet Bolton's book confirms Trump has been lying?
you've already proven to be John WELCHER maplethorpe. Why would anyone ever trust your Welching ass again?


Link? This did not happen.

The bet in question was contingent on witnesses. The Senate vote on impeachment hasn't even happened either.

lobopride
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Schiff got owned so hard with that response by Sekulow that Democrats were getting excited that slavery was coming back.
ProgN
How long do you want to ignore this user?


DO IT (gif)
4stringAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
John Maplethorpe said:

Rockdoc said:

Yep, fixing my posts is the only way they'll make any sense.


You're welcome.

Poopslap bet Bolton's book confirms Trump has been lying?


And why is Bolton to be taken at his word? He's trying to sell a book and suckers with TDS will gobble it right up.
John Maplethorpe
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

And why is Bolton to be taken at his word? He's trying to sell a book and suckers with TDS will gobble it right up


We don't have to take him at his word. He can be cross examined, he has contemporary notes and documents, corroborating testimony from other witnesses, the complaint reported to NSA lawyers, etc...

It's laughable at this point that anybody would believe Trump. Nobody will back up his version under oath.
Agvet12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It still won't directly implicate anything lol the substance isn't worth the hype.

Isn't the same guy who made a 100$ bet that trump would be removed and still hasn't paid up? Lol
Silent For Too Long
How long do you want to ignore this user?
John Maplethorpe said:

Lamar Alexander's take:

Quote:

I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.....

There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.'


TLDR: He's obviously guilty. The managers proved the case, more witnesses would just be beating a dead horse. I just don't think it merits removal from office.

https://www.alexander.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2020/1/alexander-statement-on-impeachment-witness-vote
That's all you have left?

One senator in a purple state hedging his bets a bit?

That's what you are going to hang your hat on?

You poor, poor thing.
Cassius
How long do you want to ignore this user?
backintexas2013 said:

You lost Gary. All three of your usernames lost.
First Page Last Page
Page 255 of 264
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.