The Trump Presidency...

You do realize that unless he is convicted in the Senate this whole farce is all for naught?
I see Trump is utterly shaking In his boots at the possibility of a Senate trial - which will not only have to follow federal rules on admissibility of hearsay evidence, but also allow him to call his own witnesses :grin:
 

Helm

MIA
Moderator
Book Reviewer
no, that says ‘soliciting’, not ‘collusion’

though, if you really want to start off your list of ‘crimes’ with something that Trump was completely cleared of, then you’re welcome :grin:
Completely cleared by who?
 
I see Trump is utterly shaking In his boots at the possibility of a Senate trial - which will not only have to follow federal rules on admissibility of hearsay evidence, but also allow him to call his own witnesses :grin:
I don't think our fellow posters realize that because the Dem's control the house they set the tone of the impeachment investigation. However if a trial occurs, the GOP sets the tone of that process and then the Dem's dirty laundry will also be aired.
 
I don't think our fellow posters realize that because the Dem's control the house they set the tone of the impeachment investigation. However if a trial occurs, the GOP sets the tone of that process and then the Dem's dirty laundry will also be aired.
indeed, its like a football crowd cheering because they are two goals up 40 minutes into the match.
 
You mean apart from the fact that none of them have actually attested to being told any of this directly by Trump or his associates, in fact they’ve admitted that their testimony was all Chinese whispers, rumour, duty scuttlebutt, presumption and extrapolation. In fact I find the whole thing reminiscent of what happens in the Army, where a CO gets chewing gum on his shoe, and before you know it the whole shitstorm rolls downhill till there’s people ordering stores to strip all the PK chewing gum out of ration packs before it’s issued, because “CO’s orders”



well, more accurately because someone else told them that they had heard something that someone else had said, or heard, they thought was wrong, and instead of taking the issue through the chain of command, started bobbing off to all and sundry about it. I’m sure we’ve all met the type...
I take it you haven't been following the proceedings, but taking your understanding of what's happening directly Nunes then?

I suppose if a witness saw Trump shoot someone, it wouldn't be true unless Trump told them he'd shot someone.

I think you need to actually listen to the testimonies yourself rather than getting it second hand of course.

E2A: So, according to the Republican narrative which you seemingly believe, all the testimony is hearsay. Then the answer would be for Trump to lift the ban on his aides and others from testifying, John Bolton and Guiliani for instance, and get them to sit in front of the committee.
 
Last edited:
I don't think our fellow posters realize that because the Dem's control the house they set the tone of the impeachment investigation. However if a trial occurs, the GOP sets the tone of that process and then the Dem's dirty laundry will also be aired.
Cough, some of us are aware this.

But it does show the moral backbone of Republican lawmakers as being bendy.

Lindsay Graham for instance, one time vocal critic of Trump calling him a jackass and "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot ... He doesn't represent my [Republican] party ... I don't think he has a clue about anything" etc., etc., but now goes full on Trump defender even though Trump has abused his position.

But there you go, that's politics for you.
 
Cough, some of us are aware this.

But it does show the moral backbone of Republican lawmakers as being bendy.

Lindsay Graham for instance, one time vocal critic of Trump calling him a jackass and "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot ... He doesn't represent my [Republican] party ... I don't think he has a clue about anything" etc., etc., but now goes full on Trump defender even though Trump has abused his position.

But there you go, that's politics for you.
Let’s just say in polarized America, neither side trust the other.
 
Yes, I can see that. It doesn't help having a Marmite president in charge who stokes up a lot of this polarisation.
it doesn’t help if you are on the other side. But the Trump Economy continues to do well and chug along. He is also putting a check to the Democrats social engineering agenda. So tolerated as the “ Conservative” champion he is. But really our bully is just a bigger **** then anything the Dems can muster up.
 
I take it you haven't been following the proceedings, but taking your understanding of what's happening directly Nunes then?

I suppose if a witness saw Trump shoot someone, it wouldn't be true unless Trump told them he'd shot someone.

I think you need to actually listen to the testimonies yourself rather than getting it second hand of course.
I did watch much of it directly

All I saw from the Democrats was coached witnesses, fake statements, words put in peoples mouths and wild extrapolation of woolly and uncertain rumours and hearsay into 'facts'

the whole thing was more akin to a soviet show trial than a proper inquest

E2A: So, according to the Republican narrative which you seemingly believe, all the testimony is hearsay. Then the answer would be for Trump to lift the ban on his aides and others from testifying, John Bolton and Guiliani for instance, and get them to sit in front of the committee.
Why the **** would you - everything they say is going to be misrepresented, and every question or answer that Schitt doesn't like he'll try and silence. why on earth would you openly submit yourself to a ******* joke of a show trial like that?
 
I don't think our fellow posters realize that because the Dem's control the house they set the tone of the impeachment investigation. However if a trial occurs, the GOP sets the tone of that process and then the Dem's dirty laundry will also be aired.
I don't think you or any of the other Truppits realize that non of us gives a flying fcuk, and I don't know how many times we need to say it either. We are actually laughing our faces off at U.S politics and you Truppits consumed with TDS.
1qzz1a.gif
 
="labrat, post: 9671326, member: 6022"]
I did watch much of it directly

All I saw from the Democrats was coached witnesses, fake statements, words put in peoples mouths and wild extrapolation of woolly and uncertain rumours and hearsay into 'facts'
Seems to indicate a biased prejudicial view on your part. The testimonies looked to me and other observers I've read to be generally consistent and compelling.

Are you saying Trumps best buddy Sondland and the other more Republican witnesses were coached?

the whole thing was more akin to a soviet show trial than a proper inquest
You're comparing it to a Soviet show trial? Really?

It's a political process. The Republicans did the usual stuff of trying to attack the witnesses and the process rather than deal with the obvious problem they have of the facts before them Dr Fiona Hill's deposition in particular. And I smiled at what to me seemed as the obvious subdued panic on the Republican side when they were listening to her answers.

And I have to say, the Democrat's counsel did better job at questioning than the Republican's who was stilted and hesitant, probably realising what a sh!t show he had to deal with.

Why the **** would you - everything they say is going to be misrepresented, and every question or answer that Schitt doesn't like he'll try and silence. why on earth would you openly submit yourself to a ******* joke of a show trial like that?
They don't wish to be questioned because they know they're in deep poo. End of.
 
Seems to indicate a biased prejudicial view on your part. The testimonies looked to me and other observers I've read to be generally consistent and compelling.

Are you saying Trumps best buddy Sondland and the other more Republican witnesses were coached?



You're comparing it to a Soviet show trial? Really?

It's a political process. The Republicans did the usual stuff of trying to attack the witnesses and the process rather than deal with the obvious problem they have of the facts before them Dr Fiona Hill's deposition in particular. And I smiled at what to me seemed as the obvious subdued panic on the Republican side when they were listening to her answers.

And I have to say, the Democrat's counsel did better job at questioning than the Republican's who was stilted and hesitant, probably realising what a sh!t show he had to deal with.



They don't wish to be questioned because they know they're in deep poo. End of.
Trust me Zem, debating with a Truppit is like discussing the days events with those talking dollts dolls.
You can talk sense to them all day but when you pull the string they just spout off the same thing they said yesterday............. again and again and again.
 

Latest Threads

Top