What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread



It's hilarious that the actual guy that committed Quid Pro Quo is now front runner of the Democratic Party. He even implicates Obama.

Not a word from you hypocrites. It's plain as day lol. Way more evidence than anything you hypocrites have on Trump.

"But somebody heard something from someone else."

How ****ing stupid. Democrats know how stupid and use this against their own.
 
JazzyFresh said:


It's hilarious that the actual guy that committed Quid Pro Quo is now front runner of the Democratic Party. He even implicates Obama.

Not a word from you hypocrites. It's plain as day lol. Way more evidence than anything you hypocrites have on Trump.

"But somebody heard something from someone else."

How ****ing stupid. Democrats know how stupid and use this against their own.
Click to expand...


But you know, Joe Biden admitting to this isn’t proof of anything. Agreed about the hypocrisy.
 
"I do not know the identity of the whistleblower"



Last Wednesday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, published the unredacted name of a man alleged to be the so-called whistleblower who helped launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.


The whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump did not tell Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson about his or her contact with House Intelligence Committee staff, the watchdog told lawmakers on Friday.
 
JazzyFresh said:
"I do not know the identity of the whistleblower"



Last Wednesday, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), chaired by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff, published the unredacted name of a man alleged to be the so-called whistleblower who helped launch impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.


The whistleblower who filed a complaint about President Trump did not tell Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson about his or her contact with House Intelligence Committee staff, the watchdog told lawmakers on Friday.
Click to expand...

Don’t bother, it’s all over man. Lol
 
My fav part so far is reading the different "News" outlets reporting on this crap., Each organization taking their side and putting up their barriers. I love this stuff! It's the best reality TV. About as legit as reality TV as well.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I think it's pretty damn important to be able to question the person responsible for this entire thing. Especially when they have specific interest and lawyers that have been speaking of overthrowing the government. The whistleblower is direct evidence. The whistleblower IS the evidence. I think it's completely logical thing to ask for.
Click to expand...

If you are investigating the cause of a fire, do you interview the person who reported smoke or the person who saw the arsonist pouring gasoline and starting the fire?
 
silesian said:
If you are investigating the cause of a fire, do you interview the person who reported smoke or the person who saw the arsonist pouring gasoline and starting the fire?
Click to expand...
If there's no fire, 100%. There is no gasoline here. We must figure out why said person lied and said there was gasoline. Especially if the person that made the claim had special interest.
 
JazzyFresh said:
I think it would blow this whole thing open. I think it would show that this is exactly what many think this is, just another stupid attempt to "coup" the President. Just like Russia. We have the script. The witness Taylor today wasn't even part of anything more than hearing something from someone that heard something. What a ****ing waste that was speaking of "hearsay".
Click to expand...

I agree that if all Taylor offered was hearsay, that would be a waste, unless it was used to discredit/frame other statements made by people.

I don't understand why you think having the whistle blower testify would blow something open. What would it blow open? What evidence being presented could it discredit?

JazzyFresh said:
It's obvious what this is when you're not so hellbent on impeaching Trump. I mean this thread was started months before any of this came out.
Click to expand...

I agree that people were focused on other reasons for impeachment before the Ukraine fiasco manifested.

JazzyFresh said:
All this is is attemp #15 to get people thinking about Trump rather than the worthless Democratic party that hasn't accomplished a God Damn thing. They know Trump is the death of them and their party.
Click to expand...

The Democrats survived the Reagan years, they'll survive the Trump years just fine.
 
JazzyFresh said:
Lol, stutter stutter "from what I heard". What is the point of this idiot being up there? One Brow? We can't have the whistleblower but we have some random guy that doesn't know a damn thing? A conspiracy is now evidence.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the link. What I heard was direct testimony about what Sondland and Morrison said. That's not hearsay.

If you want to claim Sondland and Morrison were acting without the President's knowledge, I suppose that would be a conspiracy.
 
JazzyFresh said:
It's hilarious that the actual guy that committed Quid Pro Quo is now front runner of the Democratic Party. He even implicates Obama.

Not a word from you hypocrites. It's plain as day lol. Way more evidence than anything you hypocrites have on Trump.
Click to expand...

As you would know, and possibly do know, Biden's son would not have been implicated by the investigation. This has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple posters. Ignoring it makes you seems incredibly stupid and/or desperate.
 
Strong testimony from Taylor today. The case against Trump is strong. I didn't realize how many people were privy to Trump's extortion of Zelensky. This is like a mafia trial where everyone knows the don is guilty yet the defense attorneys try to act like he isn't.
 
One Brow said:
I agree that if all Taylor offered was hearsay, that would be a waste, unless it was used to discredit/frame other statements made by people.

I don't understand why you think having the whistle blower testify would blow something open. What would it blow open? What evidence being presented could it discredit?



I agree that people were focused on other reasons for impeachment before the Ukraine fiasco manifested.



The Democrats survived the Reagan years, they'll survive the Trump years just fine.
Click to expand...
I mean, is there any other alternative? It’s an impenetrable two party system with very defined lines in which the debate must stay in. Venture outside of these lines and you’re entering the dark world of conspiracy theories and Russian agents.
 
One Brow said:
Thank you for the link. What I heard was direct testimony about what Sondland and Morrison said. That's not hearsay.

If you want to claim Sondland and Morrison were acting without the President's knowledge, I suppose that would be a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
LAW
the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.
 
One Brow said:
As you would know, and possibly do know, Biden's son would not have been implicated by the investigation. This has been explained to you multiple times, by multiple posters. Ignoring it makes you seems incredibly stupid and/or desperate.
Click to expand...
It makes you a hypocrite. Spare me Brow. You really don't give a ****. This is nothing more than you and your party still pissed off that they lost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top