Jump to content

In Trump-Nixon impeachment comparison, Pelosi raises specter of resignation


Recommended Posts

Posted
19 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Well, to be fair that reason is certainly more than enough for the little tyrants that call themselves liberals. Dont know if you noticed but they couldn't give 2 white dog turds about ruining people they don't like based on nothing more than their feelings and assumptions. 

Really??rember you are defending the guy who separates toddlers from their parents stabs allies in the guts then throws them to the wolves stiffs venders personally I think Donald gets off on destroying lives and please stop trying to label everyone this is about what’s acceptable and what’s not lawful or not

  • Confused 2
  • Haha 2
Posted
18 minutes ago, rabas said:

ou did hear Sondland testify to Nunes, the EU ambassador, about President Trump's passion to limit money to EU members because they are not pulling their weight, particularly on things like NATO defence? Trump's businessman sense of saving US tax payer dollars? And that Trump had deeply negative views of Ukraine because of its world renowned corruption?

And yet rather than ask American agencies to investigate Biden, he went to " Ukraine because of its world renowned corruption"

  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

He always praises and encourages his underlings. 

 

Really?

 

Well then I imagine he'll be encouraging" them to cooperate with the investigation.

 

"Underlings", how appropriate. I mean in a mob family sort of way. Well done sir.

  • Like 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

None of your round the clock trolling stops the People seeing the evidence.

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, rabas said:

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

You want to see a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the ongoing impeachment of Trump.

 

I get that.

 

Maybe do that later.

Posted
3 minutes ago, rabas said:

Some of the evidence, that which Schiff and the Democrats want you to see. I really want to see it all, including everything to do with pre/post election 2016.

 

You seem to ignore: Nothing wrong, nothing to hide.

 

Easy, all the WH has to do is release the documents and allow testimony from all.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
47 minutes ago, Thainesss said:


I see were back to quid pro quo now. How cute. 

 

And an allegation is not 'evidence' buddy. 

Do you agree that aid was withheld?  the allegation was that it was withheld for mercenary reasons , testimony from all that were there and allowed to testify substantiates the allegation.

What evidence do you want ?

As one of the congressman asked Sondland "If someone walked in here wearing rain gear, yellow galoshes holding an umbrella and water dripping from him, do I need to go out to see if it is raining?"

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Easy, all the WH has to do is release the documents and allow testimony from all.

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

That's the problem, even the hard, verifiable truth is being disregarded and waved away.

  • Sad 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Thainesss said:

 

Right and then allow the Dems to leak and frame and confine arguments & witness into what's favorable to them. 

Republicans can leak wht is favorable to them, What is stopping them?

  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, stevenl said:

That's the problem, even the hard, verifiable truth is being disregarded and waved away.

 

Verifiable truth is one thing, what the dems are doing right now is entirely another. 

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You want to see a bunch of stuff that is irrelevant to the ongoing impeachment of Trump.

 

I get that.

 

Maybe do that later.

How can corrupt events relating to Trump's 2016 election not be related to Trump's interest in seeking information on those events? And how could he trust those involved in the corruption to investigate them? It is the heart of the story.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

While you're at it bring in the "whistleblower"

Straight out of the Big Book of GOP Deflections (Impeachment Addition). 
Would you also like the Bidens to appear? Or perhaps Elvis? I mean if you’re going for the “list of people that don’t matter to this investigation” why stop at the living. 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

While you're at it bring in the "whistleblower"

The whistle blower is now make redundant by the volume of testimonies and evidences mount against Trump. Those key witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Trump should be brought to the inquiry not the whistleblower. 

  • Sad 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

The whistle blower is now make redundant by the volume of testimonies and evidences mount against Trump. Those key witnesses like Pompeo, Mulvaney and Trump should be brought to the inquiry not the whistleblower. 

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

  • Like 2
Posted
40 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Straight out of the Big Book of GOP Deflections (Impeachment Addition). 
Would you also like the Bidens to appear? Or perhaps Elvis? I mean if you’re going for the “list of people that don’t matter to this investigation” why stop at the living. 

So, the whistleblower has no part in this according to you, unbelievable.

  • Confused 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...