Quantcast

Trump's Presidency 2017 - 2021

Nick

Nick

My name is Nick
Sep 21, 2001
24,080
14,755
where the trails are
Brian HCM#1 said:
You're not at all curious to hear someone a republican might subpoena for questioning?
Click to expand...
The Republicans have subpoenaed the whistleblower and hunter Biden. First one doesn't need to do a damn thing at this point, the second has nothing to do with the accusations against the president.

If you heard all the testimony, you're willfully ignoring what was said under oath today.

Distractions and projection aren't working any longer for most of those awake and paying attention.

The Republicans in these hearings are acting like assholes and are an embarrassment to America. They're treating their supporters like FOOLS, expecting the public to believe their bullshit excuses posing as a defense. You think ANYONE believes trump gives a flying fuck about CORRUPTION of all things? Be fucking serious.

Fuck them.
 
AngryMetalsmith

AngryMetalsmith

Business is good, thanks for asking
Jun 4, 2006
21,237
10,146
I have no idea where I am
I bet you right now there are some incarcerated Maffia guys wishing that they had the Nunes, Ratcliff and Jordan Semantic Legal Works representing them. It isn't racketeering unless you use the phrase, "racketeering".
 
Last edited:
Pesqueeb

Pesqueeb

bicycle in airplane hangar
Feb 2, 2007
40,349
16,833
Riding the baggage carousel.
Nick said:
The Republicans have subpoenaed the whistleblower and hunter Biden. First one doesn't need to do a damn thing at this point, the second has nothing to do with the accusations against the president.

If you heard all the testimony, you're willfully ignoring what was said under oath today.

Distractions and projection aren't working any longer for most of those awake and paying attention.

The Republicans in these hearings are acting like assholes and are an embarrassment to America. They're treating their supporters like FOOLS, expecting the public to believe their bullshit excuses posing as a defense. You think ANYONE believes trump gives a flying fuck about CORRUPTION of all things? Be fucking serious.

Fuck them.
Click to expand...
Yesterdays witnesses, Volker and Morrison, were the witnesses the GOP requested. Since that didn't go so well, they are now resorting to the tinfoil contingency plan. This is a dumb move by Schiff IMO. Don't let the inmates run the asylum.

Edit:. I'd also like to point out, that Brian is implying, as a defense, that Sondland committed perjury today. Either there was a quid pro quo, or there was not. Brian seems to be saying that Sondland claimed both. Shrodingers bribery as a legal defense is an interesting move I'd like to see play out. :rofl:
 
Last edited:
Brian HCM#1

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Nick said:
The Republicans have subpoenaed the whistleblower and hunter Biden. First one doesn't need to do a damn thing at this point, the second has nothing to do with the accusations against the president.

If you heard all the testimony, you're willfully ignoring what was said under oath today.

Distractions and projection aren't working any longer for most of those awake and paying attention.

The Republicans in these hearings are acting like assholes and are an embarrassment to America. They're treating their supporters like FOOLS, expecting the public to believe their bullshit excuses posing as a defense. You think ANYONE believes trump gives a flying fuck about CORRUPTION of all things? Be fucking serious.

Fuck them.
Click to expand...
Schiff won’t let them talk to the whistleblower. The Republican Congress said they’d do it behind closed doors. i think they’re entitled to find out how it all began and who the whistleblower heard it from. Don’t you want to know how it all started? There was rumors that the whistleblower came directly to Schiff first, and he denied it. Do you wonder why? Wasn’t Schiff the one who went on tv and claimed he had proof of trump Russia collusion? Wasn’t it Schiff that add lib a conversation that trump was saying about Ukraine quid pro quo in front of congress? I think you need to open your eyes a little wider. I’m not saying the right is perfect but seriously, the left still can’t come to grips with 2016.
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,479
20,280
Sleazattle
Brian HCM#1 said:
Nope, its fair. In a public hearing the majority always writes the rules. Its whatever works best in their favor right? LOL! You're not at all curious to hear someone a republican might subpoena for questioning? Or does just hearing the side you favor suffice? I always thought there was due process in this country? Well I guess it depends on the circumstances, right?
Click to expand...
They may want to hear from people directly in the Trump administration, who have been forbidden from complying. They must have tons of evidence exonerating the president.

Republicans are demanding to hear from the whistleblower, but not the president. I wonder why? He could probably clear a lot of things up by making statements under oath.
 
Brian HCM#1

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Westy said:
They may want to hear from people directly in the Trump administration, who have been forbidden from complying. They must have tons of evidence exonerating the president.

Republicans are demanding to hear from the whistleblower, but not the president. I wonder why? He could probably clear a lot of things up by making statements under oath.
Click to expand...
So far all hearsay, not one person said they had direct proof. I want to hear from the whistleblower on how they first heard about quid pro quo. After all it was 2nd 3rd hand information, no first hand. You’re not curious at all on how this all started? You not curious on how the whole a Russian collusion debacle started? None of the dots are connecting for you when the Democrats talked about impeachment when Trump was first elected? It would be way more credible if the Democrats never cried impeachment until now, but they have been running through Washington with their pitchforks since day one. It’s so partisan, not one Republican believes this unlike Nixon & Clinton that was more bipartisan. It’s a waste of time anyways, it will never get past the senate. Focus on winning 2020 and he’s gone. back hosting the Apprentice.
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,479
20,280
Sleazattle
Brian HCM#1 said:
So far all hearsay, not one person said they had direct proof. I want to hear from the whistleblower on how they first heard about quid pro quo. After all it was 2nd 3rd hand information, no first hand. You’re not curious at all on how this all started? You not curious on how the whole a Russian collusion debacle started? None of the dots are connecting for you when the Democrats talked about impeachment when Trump was first elected? It would be way more credible if the Democrats never cried impeachment until now, but they have been running through Washington with their pitchforks since day one. It’s so partisan, not one Republican believes this unlike Nixon & Clinton that was more bipartisan. It’s a waste of time anyways, it will never get past the senate. Focus on winning 2020 and he’s gone. back hosting the Apprentice.
Click to expand...
No. If something wrong was done it doesn't matter who reported it. This isn't like a violent crime where someone is accusing the president of attacking them. Someone had knowledge of impropriety and reported it. On top of that the whistleblower process vettes implausible and irrelevant reports.

There could in fact be a deep state conspiracy against Trump and the whistleblower reported an actual crime to you think it should validate said crime? If the Grand Wizard of the KKK called the cops because heard of a black man murdering someone and there were eyewitnesses not belonging the KKK corroborated the evidence, does that mean there was no crime?

Good thing you are not a computer programming, yo logic broke son.
 
Brian HCM#1

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
kidwoo

kidwoo

Artisanal Tweet Curator
Aug 25, 2003
42,146
13,340
Squirtin ketchup n' mustard on charred flesh
Brian HCM#1 said:
She didn’t want it, she went down this path to satisfy her constituents. She knew what the ramifications could be. This may really backfire on the left and lock a 2020 win for Trump.
Click to expand...
it ducks, it dodges, it takes new forms

There's a reason it hasn't happened until now. It's because there was no strong case. Now there is. And someone babbling about it before doesn't mean the case being presented is worthless.

You get that right?



















right?
 
Brian HCM#1

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
Westy said:
No. If something wrong was done it doesn't matter who reported it. This isn't like a violent crime where someone is accusing the president of attacking them. Someone had knowledge of impropriety and reported it. On top of that the whistleblower process vettes implausible and irrelevant reports.

There could in fact be a deep state conspiracy against Trump and the whistleblower reported an actual crime to you think it should validate said crime? If the Grand Wizard of the KKK called the cops because heard of a black man murdering someone and there were eyewitnesses not belonging the KKK corroborated the evidence, does that mean there was no crime?

Good thing you are not a computer programming, yo logic broke son.
Click to expand...
KKK? Seriously? I’m Jewish, they hate me as much as black people. Why did you have to turn this into a race thing? I’m offended! That’s right, I’m a Trump supporter so I must be racist like the liberals love to preach! Anyways, yes you’re correct, if someone hears something that can be detrimental, by all means look into it. However, the side being accused should be able to ask that person where they received their information from. Correct? So If someone is falsely accusing you of a crime, you’re arrested waiting trial. Now the only evidence they have on you is only hearsay. Now the judge tells you well there are no actual witnesses who saw you, just someone who just heard something. With that being said we’re putting you in jail for 25 years, no need for you to hear how they got the information, because from what I was told I think your guilty. So you wouldn’t want to know who may be falsely accusing you?
 
Westy

Westy

the teste
Nov 22, 2002
54,479
20,280
Sleazattle
Brian HCM#1 said:
KKK? Seriously? I’m Jewish, they hate me as much as black people. Why did you have to turn this into a race thing? I’m offended! That’s right, I’m a Trump supporter so I must be racist like the liberals love to preach! Anyways, yes you’re correct, if someone hears something that can be detrimental, by all means look into it. However, the side being accused should be able to ask that person where they received their information from. Correct? So If someone is falsely accusing you of a crime, you’re arrested waiting trial. Now the only evidence they have on you is only hearsay. Now the judge tells you well there are no actual witnesses who saw you, just someone who just heard something. With that being said we’re putting you in jail for 25 years, no need for you to hear how they got the information, because from what I was told I think your guilty. So you wouldn’t want to know who may be falsely accusing you?
Click to expand...
I thought there were a lot of very fine people in the KKK?

You've had a lot of Newcastles tonight no?
 
Last edited:
Brian HCM#1

Brian HCM#1

MMMMMMMMM BEER!!!!!!!!!!
Sep 7, 2001
32,119
378
Bay Area, California
kidwoo said:
it ducks, it dodges, it takes new forms

There's a reason it hasn't happened until now. It's because there was no strong case. Now there is. And someone babbling about it before doesn't mean the case being presented is worthless.

You get that right?



















right?
Click to expand...
Sondland’s credibility crumbled. Right after his statement and said proof of quid pro quo, Schiff immediately took a break to announce to the media they had they had their proof of quid pro quo. The left media went into a frenzy! That all crumbled during their hearings. Sondland admitted several times later it was only presumption and never was told or had actual first hand information of Trump withholding aid. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom