the impeachment inquiry is a witch hunt

Author: n8nrgmi

Posts

Total: 225
#211
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
You still didn't watch the clip, nor had anything relevant to respond to since you have no fucking clue what they said.
They're idiots who broke into a room they had no right to be in to try to get media attention. Why would I give them that attention?


#212
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@ILikePie5
The linger the wait to impeach him, the worst it gets for them. But if they do impeach, they’re screwed. Pelosi is surrounded by two walls closin in rapidly.
Have you heard what they have found? The current top diplomat testified and confirmed that trump did engage in a quid pro quo. He testified that ambassador sondland made it clear to the Ukrainians that if they didn't publicly announce that they were investigating the Bidens that the US government would not provide aid. 

That is confirming crime #2. Crime #1 being the fact that he asked for dirt on Biden in the 1st place. 

How can you look at that and think "Wow, if they find him guilty of the crimes we now know he committed, they are screwed"? 


#213
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why would I give them that attention?

Because maybe you would want to hear their arguments before you pass judgment? Just a thought.

#214
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
The longer the wait to impeach him, the worst it gets for them. But if they do impeach, they’re screwed. Pelosi is surrounded by two walls closing in rapidly.

Pelosi didn't count on the historically spineless GOP getting emboldened by Trump's recent victories in Syria and trade dealings.
#215
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 12,516
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
And John Ratcliffe and actual member said there was no quid pro quo since there was no quo. What’s your point lol
#216
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Have you heard what they have found? The current top diplomat testified and confirmed that trump did engage in a quid pro quo.

No, he didn't. It's just one stooge in a long list of Schiff's clown car of witnesses with expert hearsay testimony. 2nd hand information isn't going to get this president impeached without a total flip of the house.
#217
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Zelensky said there was no quid either.
#218
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
No, he didn't. It's just one stooge in a long list of Schiff's clown car of witnesses with expert hearsay testimony. 2nd hand information isn't going to get this president impeached without a total flip of the house.
Wow you have really drank the coolaid haven't you? This isn't some "deepstate" guy. This isn't one isolated nut job saying things everyone else disagrees with. This is a trump appointee. He is confirming what the whistleblower and the chief of staff have already said.

There are now 3 reports by 3 seperate members of the government all saying they understood it was a quid pro quo. We are just a few weeks into this and we already have bulletproof evidence of 1 crime. 3 people reporting they knew of a 2nd crime. it is looking REALLY bad for trump. 

#219
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
What, the hearsay koolaid? I am sure you have gallons of hearsay koolaid.
#220
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
Not to mention EVEN IF Zelinsky is lying through his teeth and all the hearsay evidence was credible with zero deep state bias, Zelensky has yet to uncover the slimy dirt from the Democraps. Since there is no actual violation, even if you do somehow prove the Quid, the Quo has yet to happen. You don't prosecute almost crimes just like you don't send a husband to death row for saying he wants to kill his wife.

Shifty Shiff has been trying to impeach Trump for "Almost Crimes" since he came down the golden escalator.
#221
PoliceSheep
PoliceSheep's avatar
Debates: 26
Posts: 3
0
0
7
PoliceSheep's avatar
PoliceSheep
0
0
7
-->
@Greyparrot
@HistoryBuff is completely right here.
#222
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@PoliceSheep
I guess we will see if bits and pieces of closed session leaked hearsay testimony won't cost the Dems the house to spite a president.
#223
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Not to mention EVEN IF Zelinsky is lying through his teeth
I've already established that there is no benefit for zelinsky to say that trump pressured him. But there is a lot to lose. He is an unreliable witness. As trump currently has a significant amount of power over the well being of his entire country (and his career) you could even say he is under duress. 

all the hearsay evidence was credible
The chief of staff admitted to the quid pro quo in a briefing. That isn't hearsay. A military officer who was on the call testified today. He was so disturbed by what trump said on the call he reported it to his superiors. That isn't hearsay. Why do you think witnesses are hearsay?

Zelensky has yet to uncover the slimy dirt from the Democraps
This is irrelevant. The 1st crime was trump asking for dirt. There is no requirement for him to actually receive the dirt for it to be a crime. The 2nd crime was holding back the funding to extort him to commit the 1st crime. That doesn't require that Zelensky provided info either. When he asked for dirt and held back the funding to get the dirt, he committed 2 crimes. Whether or not he got what he wanted is irrelevant. 

Since there is no actual violation, even if you do somehow prove the Quid, the Quo has yet to happen.
I don't know where you got that from. I just explained, and have repeatedly explained, both crimes. 

You don't prosecute almost crimes just like you don't send a husband to death row for saying he wants to kill his wife.
You are clearly not very familiar with the law. Attempted murder is an "almost crime" that you would very much go to jail for. And conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime. You don't have to get the thing you want in order to commit a crime. If you try to steal a car, try to rob a bank etc, you are going to jail. Trump committed the crimes the moment he asked for the dirt and the moment he held back the funding to get the dirt. 


#224
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 22,928
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@HistoryBuff
You are clearly not very familiar with the law. Attempted murder is an "almost crime" that you would very much go to jail for. And conspiracy to commit murder is also a crime. You don't have to get the thing you want in order to commit a crime. If you try to steal a car, try to rob a bank etc, you are going to jail. Trump committed the crimes the moment he asked for the dirt and the moment he held back the funding to get the dirt.

Saying you want to kill your wife isn't attempted murder.

Saying you want a quid pro quo isn't a quid pro quo.

Democrats are so hypervigilant, they won't allow Trump the time to actually commit a crime. Maybe if they did like Trump and do a strategic pull-out, they could kill the evil badman like Trump did in Syria. Evil genius and all that.
#225
HistoryBuff
HistoryBuff's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,901
3
3
3
HistoryBuff's avatar
HistoryBuff
3
3
3
-->
@Greyparrot
Saying you want to kill your wife isn't attempted murder.
sort of. Saying "i wish my wife was dead" isn't attempted murder. Saying "I want you to help me kill my wife" is conspiracy to commit murder. Sometimes saying you want to commit a crime, is itself a crime. 

But then trump did ask them for "a favor" to dig up dirt on biden. So it isn't even hypothetical. The crime was asking. he asked. 

Saying you want a quid pro quo isn't a quid pro quo.
That depends on who you say it to. Telling your wife "I want ukraine to give me dirt on biden" is not a quid pro quo. Having the ambassador to the UN tell an aid of the president of Ukraine that they can't have military aid unless they get dirt on Biden, then on a call with the Ukrainian president tell him you want a favor, that is definitely a quid pro quo. And we now have sworn testimony that that is what happened. It's also worth noting we don't have the full transcript of the call, they cut out large chunks of the version they released. So it's possible the full version is even more damning.

Democrats are so hypervigilant, they won't allow Trump the time to actually commit a crime.
This sentence doesn't make sense. He committed 2 crimes in July. 1 when he asked for dirt on joe biden. 1 when he abused the power of his office to extort them into digging up that dirt. He committed those crimes 2 months before the impeachment inquiry began. That's like saying police are so hyper vigilant, they start investigating 2 months after a crime is committed.