Impeachment

OUBubba said:
So no one wants to discuss lev Parnes documents? They were stalking an ambassador. Remember the perfect call? She’s going to go through some things.
Click to expand...

Bubba, how many of these "we got Trump now" stories have we heard that have turned out to be not true? We're burned out.
 
OUBubba said:
You mean like roger stone? And all the others who refuse to testify?
Click to expand...

The difference is that those the Democrats want to testify can and will testify if the Democrats had the willingness to go to court for one friggin hearing. Vince Foster and James McDougal are dead. A subpoena can't bring them back to life. Susan McDougal could have testified, but she was willing to go to jail not to. Not much a subpoena can do about that either.
 
OUBubba said:
So no one wants to discuss lev Parnes documents? They were stalking an ambassador. Remember the perfect call? She’s going to go through some things.
Click to expand...

I don't mind discussing them. They don't look good. However, I have to somewhat question their reliability, because the prosecutors didn't even find them significant enough to prove them up or talk to the relevant people.
 
Garmel said:
Yeah, when preliminary evidence points to someone being innocent (like in the quid pro quo), stuff is usually dropped. However, democrats decide to go on fishing expedition after fishing expedition in order to find something
Click to expand...

I35 said:
If the transcript didn’t end it, then the witnesses with no facts should have. But they voted to Impeach anyway and send it to the senate where they then played games with the articles of impeachment by holding on to it to try to persuade the Senate to continue their clown show.
Click to expand...

I was talking more broadly, but let's look at the call transcript issue. In what sense did it exonerate Trump? It didn't prove Trump's guilt. I agree with that, but I don't see a case that it exonerated him. It was inconclusive.

If you want to rip Adam Schiff for calling a bunch of irrelevant witnesses, I won't argue that point. He put forth about the crappiest effort to prove a case I've ever seen. If I tried to proved cases like he did, I would have been sued for malpractice. However, if he had actually taken the matter seriously and subpoenaed the relevant witnesses, I would not have blamed him.
 
Mr. Deez said:
In what sense did it exonerate Trump? It didn't prove Trump's guilt. I agree with that, but I don't see a case that it exonerated him. It was inconclusive.
However, if he had actually taken the matter seriously and subpoenaed the relevant witnesses, I would not have blamed him.
Click to expand...

I believe it did exonerate Trump. They were talking about a specific phone call and we’re in shock when he immediately released the transcript. Then they claimed it wasn’t the whole transcript. So witnesses that “were there” said it was. Then they dropped that and started claiming there was a second phone call and Trump released it. The Ukrainian leader said he didn’t feel like President Trump pressured him. A witness for Schiff testified that Trump said he didn’t want anything and no Quid Pro Quo. I’m not sure how you don’t see that as exonerating himself. Give me an example of what Trump could have done more in your eyes to exonerate himself? So I don’t see how that can be inconclusive.

I know you were talking more broadly and not just about the phone call. Can you give more examples of what else Trump has done that falls in that more broad statement? You said of him and Clinton that they both have done some things. What are those things that are impeachable?

The next election the people will
speak loudly at the ballot box. I’m talking 1984 all over again. Probably minus California and New York though. I guess that will be the President’s exoneration.
 
OUBubba said:
There needs to be a sad icon that I can select.
Click to expand...

Why not buy him one of the 'special edition' impeachment pens off Nancy's PAC fundraiser website, send him one?
Or, perhaps wait for the ceremonial koozie, I am sure those will be sweet
 
Last edited:
Did anybody see the video of the house Dems walking down the wide halls with the articles of impeachment in an orderly fashion? What a bunch of quacks. Most of America doesn’t care about this and think they are idiots.
 
OUBubba said:
So no one wants to discuss lev Parnes documents? They were stalking an ambassador. Remember the perfect call? She’s going to go through some things.
Click to expand...

Parnes, like Cohen, Stormy, Avenatti and everyone else you've hitched your wagon to in the past, is not who you think he is. He has already been busted on some purported hand-written notes on hotel stationary. He said they were Rudy's but it's already been shown they were in his handwriting. LOL. This move here is just a Michael Cohen repeat.
 
Joe Fan said:
Parnes, like Cohen, Stormy, Avenatti and everyone else you've hitched your wagon to in the past, is not who you think he is. He has already been busted on some purported hand-written notes on hotel stationary. He said they were Rudy's but it's already been shown they were in his handwriting. LOL. This move here is just a Michael Cohen repeat.
Click to expand...

Poor Bubba burst open the doors pounding his chest for his Ta Da moment only to look around and see there’s no Ta Da.
 
I35 said:
Did anybody see the video of the house Dems walking down the wide halls with the articles of impeachment in an orderly fashion? What a bunch of quacks. Most of America doesn’t care about this and think they are idiots.
Click to expand...
need vol on
 
Joe Fan said:
Nancy was giving out impeachment swag at her signing party -- impeachment koozies reserved for the after party. So much for "somber and prayerful”
Click to expand...

Nancy has to be the most classless Speaker of the House in history. Because Mitch McConnell won't accede to her demands regarding the Senate trial, she implied he too was a Russian agent. There is no boundary she's not willing to cross, no decency in her whatsoever.
 
OUBubba said:
So no one wants to discuss lev Parnes documents? They were stalking an ambassador. Remember the perfect call? She’s going to go through some things.
Click to expand...
Bubba, not sure if you heard in Oklahoma, but we have these things called presidential elections, which happen every 4 years. Vastly more important than conspiracy theories.
 
Joe Fan said:
Some people like this one better. I like the Star Wars one best
Click to expand...


I think it would be hilarious if they did the wizard of Oz where the witches troops are marching back to the castle “O de O oooooo O”

but I like the Star Wars one too.
 
If this is true, wouldn't Senators (such as Sanders and Warren) who are running for POTUS have to recuse themselves from the vote? Trump merely asks about Hunter Biden and he gets impeached because Joe Biden is "a political rival", shouldn't the conflict of interest here be much more straightforward?
Click to expand...

From my fingers to Marsha Blackburn's eyes:

Today, Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) gave the following statement regarding the participation of the four Senators running for president in the Senate impeachment trial:

“Tomorrow, one hundred United States Senators will be sworn in to serve in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump. Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office. These four Democrats, Senators Bennet, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren, cannot sit in judgment of the very President they seek to replace. To participate in this trial would be a failure of the oath they took to be an ‘impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws’. Their presidential ambitions prohibit their ability to view this trial through an objective lens.” – Senator Marsha Blackburn
 
I want to see the vids of the GOP holding a "somber" signing ceremony and then the processional walking the signed docs to the Senate.
 
Is Blackburn another Hornsfan lurker?
It certainly looks that way
Out with it, which one of you is Marsha?
Phil Elliott said:
“ ... . Four of those Senators must recuse themselves for their unparalleled political interest in seeing this President removed from office. These four Democrats, Senators Bennet, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren, cannot sit in judgment of the very President they seek to replace. To participate in this trial would be a failure of the oath they took to be an ‘impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws’. Their presidential ambitions prohibit their ability to view this trial through an objective lens.” – Senator Marsha Blackburn
Click to expand...

From yesterday morning \/
Joe Fan said:
Based on the debates, I would not stop with my recusal demands at those tainted by Hunter Biden's dirty money. Based on what they've just said, I would argue it is impossible for Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to be unbiased jurors. And I would throw in Michael Bennet, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris too for recent similar statements. Allowing them to remain on "the jury" would the equivalent of letting the prosecutor sit on the jury. If they are allowed do remain, they will be sitting in judgment of their specific political opponent for that same political cycle. This is a ridiculous situation. Republicans should make a big deal of this, take the time to explain it, and force Roberts to make a ruling on this. (In real life, probably all 100 of them would be excused as jurors)
Click to expand...
 
I35 said:
I believe it did exonerate Trump. They were talking about a specific phone call and we’re in shock when he immediately released the transcript. Then they claimed it wasn’t the whole transcript. So witnesses that “were there” said it was. Then they dropped that and started claiming there was a second phone call and Trump released it. The Ukrainian leader said he didn’t feel like President Trump pressured him. A witness for Schiff testified that Trump said he didn’t want anything and no Quid Pro Quo. I’m not sure how you don’t see that as exonerating himself. Give me an example of what Trump could have done more in your eyes to exonerate himself? So I don’t see how that can be inconclusive.

I know you were talking more broadly and not just about the phone call. Can you give more examples of what else Trump has done that falls in that more broad statement? You said of him and Clinton that they both have done some things. What are those things that are impeachable?

The next election the people will
speak loudly at the ballot box. I’m talking 1984 all over again. Probably minus California and New York though. I guess that will be the President’s exoneration.
Click to expand...
It is not a transcript. It is a summary. Pompeo declined knowledge of it then it turns out he was on the call. John Bolton referred to it as a drug deal and promptly resigned. He referenced “she’s going to go through some things” after knowing that she was being tracked and stalked. The good news is they declined the opportunity to take care of her or some other mob sounding stuff. Will no one did me of this meddlesome priest?
 
82589297_3001041493248391_645139693138083840_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top