Pelosi Impeachment Inquiry

maximumpossiblesuffering said:
Either that or sarcasm or mocking. I wasted your assertion there is a meaningful development in the impeachment show and your reply had nothing to do with my points. Those who are not Radical Liberals would call that a weak response. Radical Liberals would call that evidence, I suppose. Besides, whatever I refer to myself as intellectually on this issue seems to still leave you a few rungs lower.

You are welcome to prove me wrong, but based on my experience with other Liberal posters on ET, I am not going to hold my breath. You guys almost never admit when you are wrong, and you are wrong a lot. Often you guys make weak arguments in an attempt to support your pathetic positions.

Care to prove me wrong? Please?
More...

I don’t have to prove you are anything, you simply are what you are.

It’s certainly a meaningful development to have a top administration official state he has first hand knowledge of a quid pro quo for political gain. That’s corruption and abuse of power. See, it is what it is.

There’s an old Roman saying that goes you can call a cat a fish but it still won’t swim. Bolton is a swimming fish.

The question now is how strong is Republican political power. There are quite a few Republican Senators that are now on their heels in terms of accountability to voters. Voting for a dismissal without witnesses will have political repercussions - especially now that there is a direct evidence witness. Voting for witnesses will have even larger ramifications but not on them.

The White House does not want the “flood gates” opened because they are actively in the midst of a cover up and there is a chance Trump can be removed once witnesses start testifying.

3C459249-BE3D-4684-B9D1-A3BFB7928B03.jpeg


Republicans are going to get hammered on corruption and cover up this next election - and rightfully so - the question is how many senators are going down.
 
LacesOut said:
In the world of a libtard, hearsay from a disgruntled ex employee is evidence.
When you find Trump’s loads on a blue dress and you have evidence of perjury, gimme a ring!
More...

A yes, another "barely knew him" coffee boy that shouldn't testify in an impeachment probe because he was disgruntled.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/trump-denies-telling-john-bolton-ukraine-aide-was-tied-to-biden-probe/
Trump denies telling John Bolton Ukraine aide was tied to Biden probe

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

“In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination.”

The president insisted that if Bolton made the remarks it was “only to sell a book.”
 
Last edited:
Dicey game the dems are playing.

The idiots think that they can agree to witnesses and then coerce the republicans to do so as well, and say scary things about republicans will get hammered if they are up for re-election.

So then, everyone gets witnesses. Except Trump will assert executiive privilege for bolton and probably will win on that issue. Meanwhile the dems opened the door to the republicans calling the bidens and others, while not getting Bolton which was their original goal.

Then at election, the at-risk republicans say "I voted for witnesses, but I can't control how the court ruled on the issue."

Be careful tards, you are not all that smart. and no Trump does not lose his power to invoke executive privilege just because the testimony would be before an impeachment tribunal. But if you want to go down that road, that's fine too. If you want to see this thing go into the spring.

Also, the republicans have enough votes to allow the at-riskers to vote for witnesses and then shut the whole thing down with a motion for summary judgment and let the at-riskers vote against that too.

Be careful Tards, you are less than smart.

Having said all that, my position is the same on witnesses..ie. I am okay either way. I think Bolton is a roll of the dice for the dems and mulvaney as well. And for every pound of flesh they extract from Trump, they will take four from the Bidens. And let's get the whistleblower and Schifff in as witnesses too.
 
Last edited:
TreeFrogTrader said:
Dicey game the dems are playing.

The idiots think that they can agree to witnesses and then coerce the republicans to do so as well, and say scary things about republicans will get hammered if they are up for re-election.

So then, everyone gets witnesses. Except Trump will assert executiive privilege for bolton and probably will win on that issue. Meanwhile the dems opened the door to the republicans calling the bidens and others, while not getting Bolton which was their original goal.

Then at election, the at-risk republicans say "I voted for witnesses, but I can't control how the court ruled on the issue."

Be careful tards, you are not all that smart. and no Trump does not lose his power to invoke executive privilege just because the testimony would be before an impeachment tribunal. But if you want to go down that road, that's fine too. If you want to see this thing go into the spring.

Also, the republicans have enough votes to allow the at-riskers to vote for witnesses and then shut the whole thing down with a motion for summary judgment and let the at-riskers vote against that too.

Be careful Tards, you are less than smart.

Having said all that, my position is the same on witnesses..ie. I am okay either way. I think Bolton is a roll of the dice for the dems and mulvaney as well. And for every pound of flesh they extract from Trump, they will take four from the Bidens. And let's get the whistleblower and Schifff in as witnesses too.
More...

You and Trump are the only ones worried about calling witnesses. Democrats aren’t worried about that cockamamie Joe Biden, Ukraine nonsense one bit.

Take a lesson from American history:

During the Civil War Admiral Farragut was leading the Union naval forces at the battle of Mobile Bay. During the battle one of the ships said something to the effect of we can’t go forward there’s torpedoes. Back in those days mines in the water were called torpedoes. Did Farragut say, ok let’s go home and hope for a political victory?

No! He said damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.
 
Here4money said:
A yes, another "barely knew him" coffee boy that shouldn't testify in an impeachment probe because he was disgruntled.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/27/trump-denies-telling-john-bolton-ukraine-aide-was-tied-to-biden-probe/
Trump denies telling John Bolton Ukraine aide was tied to Biden probe

“I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens,” Trump wrote on Twitter.

“In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination.”

The president insisted that if Bolton made the remarks it was “only to sell a book.”
More...
All you have to do is look at the Transcript..
that has not changed...

Or maybe you can talk about a non-existent audio recording by Omarosa of Trump saying the word 'nigger' - i'm sure that will fit your narrative...Or, at least until it never comes out, you can believe it...
 
This bolton thing sure seems like it could be the establishment end game some have been suspecting all along.


1. Mitch is pretending to support him.

2. Pelosi holds out for a month to get the bolton book closer to print. (bolton gets huge publicity for book.)

3. NYT has leak.

4. at the last minute they allow bolton to testify.

5. Bolton says Trump did it. Pulls out some email.

6. Establishment Republicans say they have to follow constitution.
A few of them willing to lose their seats or in safe seats vote with the democrats.
Pence or Romney runs with a woman VP promising to fulfill Trumps "good policies"..

Trump gets pardon...

Everyone happy except the President Ivanka and Jared.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top