The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[sho]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

Next time he is asked about it he will say he doesnt know Sondland. He never knew Sondland, never talked to Sondland and Sondland is a never trumper. 

 

 

as if on queue, not as bold

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Sure, don't care. But when you come here with Republican opinions from Republican news sources that don't present facts, you can't really complain about this being an "echo chamber" when actual facts are given.

 

I mean... you're describing getting your news from an echo chamber. 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

THIS is an echo chamber.... On the impeachment, I'm fairly impartial, but the presumption of innocence is a benchmark of our justice system. I know when it's a republican on the hot seat, you would prefer a lynch mob mentality, but that's not how this deal works...

 

So unless you've got evidence that hasn't been presented in the hearing that actually links the financial aid to the Biden/Burisma investigation, then there's nothing here... And what I mean by that is, if that evidence (other than assumptions and vague circumstantial evidence) exists, then please post it here.

[Ulty]

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Prior days of testimony appeared to show no wrong-doing, and multiple witnesses testified that explicitly. 

Wha???

 

 

8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Still, no one has any evidence whatsoever that the foreign financial aid was contingent upon the investigation of Biden & Burisma 

No evidence whatsoever...except multiple witness statements from foreign policy experts and a summary of the phone call released by Trump himself that indicate otherwise.

[Born N Bled Red]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

THIS is an echo chamber.... On the impeachment, I'm fairly impartial, but the presumption of innocence is a benchmark of our justice system. I know when it's a republican on the hot seat, you would prefer a lynch mob mentality, but that's not how this deal works...

 

So unless you've got evidence that hasn't been presented in the hearing that actually links the financial aid to the Biden/Burisma investigation, then there's nothing here... And what I mean by that is, if that evidence (other than assumptions and vague circumstantial evidence) exists, then please post it here.

 

Direct quote from Sondland????

 

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?" As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

...

Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.

...

I mentioned to Vice President Pence before the meetings with the Ukrainians that I had concerns that the delay in aid had become tied to the issue of investigations.

 

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

THIS is an echo chamber

 

It isn't. There are quite a few diverse opinions here. The people who assert this is an echo chamber are, without fail, far-right people who don't value facts.

 

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

On the impeachment, I'm fairly impartial

 

Clearly this is untrue.

 

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

I know when it's a republican on the hot seat, you would prefer a lynch mob mentality

 

You know nothing of the sort, and ad hominem attacks like this are unnecessary.

 

2 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

So unless you've got evidence that hasn't been presented in the hearing that actually links the financial aid to the Biden/Burisma investigation

 

You clearly have not been paying attention to the actual testimony in these hearings and have, instead, been listening to Republican news sources. 

 

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

please post it here

 

Please read through the last, say, 20 pages of this thread. Only this time, do it without preconceived notions of Democrat wrongdoing and Trump innocence.

[BigRedBuster]

16 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Prior days of testimony appeared to show no wrong-doing, and multiple witnesses testified that explicitly. Today I watched the opening statement by Sondland, and the interjection of Giuliani was definitely interesting and somewhat troubling, as well as the fact that the white house apparently did not let him access the documents he would need in order to recall an accurate account of the events. Then Schiff's questioning was basically trying to put words into Sondland's mouth, which didn't work.... Still, no one has any evidence whatsoever that the foreign financial aid was contingent upon the investigation of Biden & Burisma - only assumptions... Meanwhile, no statement has been made, no investigation has been opened, and the aid has been released. So until that actually gets confirmed it's an open case

Have you been actually paying attention?  

 

Your first sentence is baffling.  The rest is the same.

[knapplc]

25 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Reading through Republican media sources, they're poking holes in the case and say it's a sham.

 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Your first sentence is baffling.  The rest is the same.

 

It is not baffling in the least considering the above quote.

[Nebfanatic]

'Trump never said specifically' 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ActualCornHusker]

6 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Please read through the last, say, 20 pages of this thread. Only this time, do it without preconceived notions of Democrat wrongdoing and Trump innocence.

 

Never said Trump was innocent. But he should be presumed so until proven otherwise

[knapplc]

Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Never said Trump was innocent. But he should be presumed so until proven otherwise

 

Are you paying attention to Sondland's testimony today?

[BigRedBuster]

3 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Never said Trump was innocent. But he should be presumed so until proven otherwise

and.....What do you think the opening statement today indicates?

 

 

Honest question.  When I first saw this, I thought it was a photoshop.  Is this for real?

PS....I absolutely hate how this site lumps posts together automatically.  I did not mean for my second post to be asked towards just who I quoted.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Never said Trump was innocent. But he should be presumed so until proven otherwise

Presumed innocent among the jury trying him. The public is free to do whatever they like, and they do all of the time in all sorts of high profile cases. Did people in the public presume Casey Anthony was innocent?

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

Honest question.  When I first saw this, I thought it was a photoshop.  Is this for real?

 

100% real.  Many reporters are noting that Trump needs glasses but refuses to wear them, so he writes large notes to himself - hilariously, in Sharpie. 

[BigRedBuster]

2 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

100% real.  Many reporters are noting that Trump needs glasses but refuses to wear them, so he writes large notes to himself - hilariously, in Sharpie. 

The baffling part is that he needs those notes to begin with.  He writes himself talking points so he can remember what lie he's trying to propagate?  

[Nebfanatic]

4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The baffling part is that he needs those notes to begin with.  He writes himself talking points so he can remember what lie he's trying to propagate?  

Techinically that one isn't a lie. It's just a cherry picked excerpt from Sondlands testimony