Official President Trump Impeachment Inquiry Thread

[IGotWorms 3,310]

2 hours ago, KSB2424 said:

This pretty much.  The basis for which the House Democrats are going through this impeachment process are not rooted in any kind actual direct facts.  It's feelings, guesses, hearsay and hypotheticals of what some people (picked by Democrats) believe to be true.  There is no smoking gun.  Ever since the election, and since the House is controlled by Dems they have been looking under every nook and cranny for a reason to impeach this POTUS.  They simply do not accept the 2016 election.  Period.

It will fall like a cheap tent in the Senate.  Then we'll have an election where the people decide.

No that’s all false. You’d have to be an idiot to think there are no facts.

But, ultimately, the senate will acquit (mostly because it’s controlled by republicans) and Trump will be re-elected. I’m pretty sure that’s correct.

[MDC 5,890]

9 minutes ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

Assuming your hatred for him is based upon that he's a successful white male i.e. envy.

Are you 12?

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

52 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Standard : IF Democrats do it, its "unproven", "disproven", "debunked", "non-issue", or just a republican talking point to note it.....you see, when Democrats do something wrong, illegal, corrupt its because they are trying to protect you from the real evil.....people who do not think as they do.....

Everyone else is held to a standard, just not them

That's  a byproduct of the Mainstream Media covering for the Democrats. They don't need to be held to account if nobody knows of their crimes.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

1 hour ago, MDC said:

Are you 12?

No and I won't help you find your puppy pervo.

[RLLD 3,455]

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

58 minutes ago, RLLD said:

 

And that's THEIR witness. Why did they call him in if they won't listen to his counsel? 

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

"This is the first time in History that articles of impeachment will be assembled without an official full house vote to initiate the impeachment process. This is also the first impeachment effort without the House attaining recognized judicial enforcement authority.  The vote will take place before the Supreme Court weighs-in on the legal framework for the House effort. The House judicial enforcement authority, not being recognized by the Supreme Court, likely had a strong bearing on the timing."

[IGotWorms 3,310]

1 minute ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

And that's THEIR witness. Why did they call him in if they won't listen to his counsel? 

 

Turley was called by the Republicans

[RLLD 3,455]

34 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

Turley was called by the Republicans

Correct.  And as a witness was far more credible.  Their one allowed witness crushed it, far more than the clearly biased others.

[IGotWorms 3,310]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Correct.  And as a witness was far more credible.  Their one allowed witness crushed it, far more than the clearly biased others.

Well don’t go sucking Turkey’s cack too much. He isn’t very credible either, having previously testified that Clinton SHOULD be impeached for inconsequential conduct.

The whole law professors thing was dumb, really. Maybe they could’ve pulled it off if that one lady hadn’t made an ass of herself but at the same time that kind of thing was pretty predictable

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

Did they get the bad man yet, mommy?

[Cdub100 3,380]

Is this still going on?

[avoiding injuries 1,220]

 

[Intense Observer 344]

WaPo admits that the facts of the impeachment hearing are not convincing, now it is time for journalists to refocus their propaganda game if they want to sway undecided voters.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/wall-to-wall-impeachment-coverage-is-not-changing-any-minds-heres-how-journalists-can-reach-the-undecided/2019/12/05/a04aa658-16c3-11ea-a659-7d69641c6ff7_story.html

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Turley was called by the Republicans

And the Dems allowed it? That's a first in this process then.

4 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Well don’t go sucking Turkey’s cack too much. He isn’t very credible either, having previously testified that Clinton SHOULD be impeached for inconsequential conduct.

The whole law professors thing was dumb, really. Maybe they could’ve pulled it off if that one lady hadn’t made an ass of herself but at the same time that kind of thing was pretty predictable

Perjury, obstruction of justice, suborning perjury.......inconsequential.   

The lady merely showed the TDS she and all of you liberals are afflicted with. You're all loons.   

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Trump sitting there thinking

 

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

AT&T might be in big trouble as well as the NSA people who gave up this information.

In addition, the claim Guiliani was talking to the OMB is fake. Intercepting Trump lawyers' calls illegal as well.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/12/rudy-giuliani-meets-with-ukrainian-lawmaker-andrey-derkach-who-revealed-burisma-holdings-paid-joe-biden-900000-for-lobbying/

Burisma Holdings paid Joe Biden $900,000.00 for lobbying.

Nothing but a vast right wing conspiracy. 

[Utilit99 4,099]

6 hours ago, IGotWorms said:

Well don’t go sucking Turkey’s cack too much.

This is liberal speak for "whaaaaaawaaaaaaawaaaaaa".

Keep up the good work stormtrooper.

[Utilit99 4,099]

5 hours ago, Cdub100 said:

Is this still going on?

Darn tootin. The left are unstoppable at whining perpetually. Noone can keep them from crying their fake tears. NOONE!!!!

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Did Schiff get these documents with assistance from the SDNY via a NSL (National Security Letter)? Did the FBI buy off on that? If so, Director Wray has some explaining to do why this has anything to do with National Security.

• Congress can't subpoena a private citizen or a private entity to turn over documents of a customer, they have to get a judge. It's pretty simple. Lawfareblog and the Wittes crew are full of .

   

• Chapter 85 of title 28, US Code, Sec. 1365a. "Congressional actions against subpoena recipients" "The action shall be filed in a United States district court of competent jurisdiction. It shall be the duty of the US district courts"

   

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

Rudy dropping a bomb on Dems. 

 

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

On 11/20/2019 at 2:16 AM, Hawkeye21 said:

It's interesting seeing reactions from people on both sides.  They both think it's going their way and they are just killing it.  Neither can understand how the other side thinks they are winning too.  It's fascinating.

It's like that on virtually every issue. Immigration, climate change, anything. Completely different set of facts entirely between the two sides.

It's crazy. 

[Bill E. 666]

12 hours ago, RLLD said:

Correct.  And as a witness was far more credible.  Their one allowed witness crushed it, far more than the clearly biased others.

That is true.  The problem is the msm focused on the "witnesses" that made Trump look bad.  The part where three of themm admitted to being Dem donors never made it into the 2 minute nightly news coverage.  I spoke to my parents who  just watch the 6:00 news and they say something like "it looks bad for Trump"  I ask what exactly he did and they do not really know.  There are way too many voters that only see the highlights that the major networks want them to see and buy right into it.

[12th Man 884]

17 hours ago, Filthy Fernadez said:

No and I won't help you find your puppy pervo.

MDCuck has pedo traits. He also defends known pedos. I feel bad for his kid.

 

[RLLD 3,455]

1 hour ago, Bill E. said:

That is true.  The problem is the msm focused on the "witnesses" that made Trump look bad.  The part where three of themm admitted to being Dem donors never made it into the 2 minute nightly news coverage.  I spoke to my parents who  just watch the 6:00 news and they say something like "it looks bad for Trump"  I ask what exactly he did and they do not really know.  There are way too many voters that only see the highlights that the major networks want them to see and buy right into it.

Yes, we know that MSM is trying to manipulate people, its sick

[Hawkeye21 1,852]

4 hours ago, titans&bucs&bearsohmy! said:

It's like that on virtually every issue. Immigration, climate change, anything. Completely different set of facts entirely between the two sides.

It's crazy. 

I think it's just human nature.  For some reason a lot of people don't see that, or choose not to.

[vuduchile 1,941]

2 hours ago, Bill E. said:

That is true.  The problem is the msm focused on the "witnesses" that made Trump look bad.  The part where three of themm admitted to being Dem donors never made it into the 2 minute nightly news coverage.  I spoke to my parents who  just watch the 6:00 news and they say something like "it looks bad for Trump"  I ask what exactly he did and they do not really know.  There are way too many voters that only see the highlights that the major networks want them to see and buy right into it.

Yep.  This is clearly the dem/ media strategy.  

Keep leading every Trump story with the words impeachment, bribery and extortion all the way up thru the election.  

Average Americans aren’t following this closely enough to see what a sham it is, so they’ll head to the polls with all these words in mind.  

[DonS 3,067]

3 hours ago, Bill E. said:

That is true.  The problem is the msm focused on the "witnesses" that made Trump look bad.  The part where three of themm admitted to being Dem donors never made it into the 2 minute nightly news coverage.  I spoke to my parents who  just watch the 6:00 news and they say something like "it looks bad for Trump"  I ask what exactly he did and they do not really know.  There are way too many voters that only see the highlights that the major networks want them to see and buy right into it.

This.  My wife watches morning news every day before work. I happened to be heading out the door when they covered the "damaging testimony from Sondland!!!!!".  Oddly enough they failed to show the exchange where he testified that Trump explicitly said he wanted no quid pro quo and how Sondland PRESUMED everything that was "damaging". 

Scary indeed if this is your only and trusted source of "news". 

[drobeski 3,061]

1 hour ago, DonS said:

This.  My wife watches morning news every day before work. I happened to be heading out the door when they covered the "damaging testimony from Sondland!!!!!".  Oddly enough they failed to show the exchange where he testified that Trump explicitly said he wanted no quid pro quo and how Sondland PRESUMED everything that was "damaging". 

Scary indeed if this is your only and trusted source of "news". 

Worms is your wife?

[DonS 3,067]

2 minutes ago, drobeski said:

Worms is your wife?

You just crossed a line!       where's my safe space at? 

[lickin_starfish 1,480]

https://magaimg.net/img/9x7j.jpg

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

16 minutes ago, lickin_starfish said:

https://magaimg.net/img/9x7j.jpg

4, 3, 1, 2

[IGotWorms 3,310]

1 hour ago, drobeski said:

Worms is your wife?

Son of a b1tch didn’t even put his coffee cup in the dishwasher

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

So the ICIG DID change the Whistleblower form AFTER the complaint was filed to be able to use heresay. Focking clown show....

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/01/intel-community-admission-of-whistleblower-changes-raises-explosive-new-questions/

The ICIG also disclosed for the first time that the anti-Trump complainant filed his complaint using the previously authorized form, the guidance for which explicitly stated the ICIG’s previous requirement for firsthand evidence for credible complaints. The Federalist reported last week that it was not known which form, if any, the complainant used, as the complaint that was declassified and released to the public last week was written as a letter to the two chairmen of the congressional intelligence committees.

In its press release, the ICIG also explicitly admitted it changed its policies because of the anti-Trump complaint, raising significant questions about whether the watchdog cooked its own books to justify its treatment of the anti-Trump complaint:

[drobeski 3,061]

 

[Alias Detective 1,179]

Is Trump changing strategies?

Sounds like he is asking for a pass on impeachment based on his success so far in his 1st term.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

[drobeski 3,061]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELbx1q4U8AAloGw?format=jpg&name=large

[Strike 3,957]

2 hours ago, Alias Detective said:

Is Trump changing strategies?

Sounds like he is asking for a pass on impeachment based on his success so far in his 1st term.

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump

Why would he change strategies?  Now they're not even impeaching him for "quid pro quo"/"Bribery".  They're just using vague terms that could apply to any President they don't like.  Pretty focking disgusting.

[Filthy Fernadez 2,696]

28 minutes ago, Strike said:

Why would he change strategies?  Now they're not even impeaching him for "quid pro quo"/"Bribery".  They're just using vague terms that could apply to any President they don't like.  Pretty focking disgusting.

Just like anyone else in the Russia Collusion hoax; charged with a process crime. "Oh, you don't want to put your head in the noose? OBSTRUCTION!!!!!"