Will Trump win again???

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It’s not skeptical at all when the real potential of perjury comes into play,,especially after seeing Roger get nailed.



I’m saying to most people, I would think it looks pretty shady to have to amend your testimony. How do you not remember the key points of why you were asked to testify the first go around?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And I will again re-harp on how Schiff is uniquely, bordering on a singular quality, to lead these proceedings. Never mind, albeit significant, that Nunes is not an attorney, and not even mildly bright, and his lead legal counsel on the R side has absolutely no experience in such matters as he is a commercial litigator and Jim Jordan went to a bottom of the barrel law school and has never passed the bar.

Schiff is and was a professional prosecutor, with the pelts to prove it....


 
Unfortunately, I have to I agree with her:

You agree that their arguments are weak, yet you lack the ability to show where there’s any proof of bribery or a quid pro quo. I thought you were better than this FFP, I really did. You seem to be so logical and evidence based on most things. Why no need for evidence here?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
I’m saying to most people, I would think it looks pretty shady to have to amend your testimony. How do you not remember the key points of why you were asked to testify the first go around?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When threat of federal prison commands you to tell the actual truth. Problem is many folks think they have the same protections as the President—they do not, lying to federal investigators when then they have you dead to rights in testimony that is easily contradicted, serves as a large impetus to someone like Sondland who has never ever been close to a prison and I’m certain his person attorney advised as much,
 
And I will again re-harp on how Schiff is uniquely, bordering on a singular quality, to lead these proceedings. Never mind, albeit significant, that Nunes is not an attorney, and not even mildly bright, and his lead legal counsel on the R side has absolutely no experience in such matters as he is a commercial litigator and Jim Jordan went to a bottom of the barrel law school and has never passed the bar.

Schiff is and was a professional prosecutor, with the pelts to prove it....



Schiff is running a sham of an impeachment hearings. He’s denying witnesses, he’s lying about knowing who the whistleblower is, he’s not allowing points of order to be called, he’s cutting off questioning from the republicans when he doesn’t like what their asking. Even if you think Trump is guilty as can be, you gotta admit he’s not running a fair impeachment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When threat of federal prison commands you to tell the actual truth. Problem is many folks think they have the same protections as the President—they do not, lying to federal investigators when then they have you dead to rights in testimony that is easily contradicted, serves as a large impetus to someone like Sondland who has never ever been close to a prison and I’m certain his person attorney advised as much,

You’re missing my point here somehow....

Do you not see how the perception you give off by having to come back and amend testimony makes you seem untruthful? Even if it’s now true cause of threat of jail time, why didn’t you tell the whole truth the first time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I missed the Sondland evidence I guess, but he’s testifying this week, right? I thought it was pretty well established there existed a quid pro quo, despite whatever Trump keeps saying. What foreign country do we supply aid to that doesn’t have strings attached? The question is whether the quo was specifically an attempt to get Biden or rather Biden was part of the broader looking into corruption. Honestly, whatever Hunter was up to in all 3 countries probably deserves some looking into, especially as Joe is a leading candidate for 2020. All the anti-Trump people would sure want the same for Don Jr.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s all ugly, but one is impeachable and the other isn’t. I firmly believe the House is going to impeach Trump. The Senate hearings will actually be interesting. We’ll hear from everyone, not just the partisan narrative we have now. My bet is everyone involved in this is going to come out smelling like you know what
 
Last edited:
You’re missing my point here somehow....

Do you not see how the perception you give off by having to come back and amend testimony makes you seem untruthful? Even if it’s now true cause of threat of jail time, why didn’t you tell the whole truth the first time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even if it’s under threat of jail—that’s a Huge IF. You ever do time? Been in a prison? This is not like do a couple of weekends, you do realize that Roger Stones sentence could be measure in years, potentially over 10, and not months. Eff perception, the truth is the truth especially when the other side is holding documents to the contrary. He didn’t tell the truth initially, because he thought he could bs his way through it like Trump, problem is, he is not the President and can and will be prosecuted is he lies to federal investigators — its as simple as that.
 
Schiff is running a sham of an impeachment hearings. He’s denying witnesses, he’s lying about knowing who the whistleblower is, he’s not allowing points of order to be called, he’s cutting off questioning from the republicans when he doesn’t like what their asking. Even if you think Trump is guilty as can be, you gotta admit he’s not running a fair impeachment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Here is thing, the House runs their proceeding, the Senate will get to set their own rules for theirs....and as I have previously explained, the process is not a criminal it’s political. As such, due process, the ability to confront, rules of evidence do NOT apply.
 
You’re missing my point here somehow....

Do you not see how the perception you give off by having to come back and amend testimony makes you seem untruthful? Even if it’s now true cause of threat of jail time, why didn’t you tell the whole truth the first time?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m missing somehow?? Tell you what, if you think you could get into my law school, start smashing that LSAT and let’s what you got. Until that day, review the following, at it makes clear the profound legal jeopardy Sondland has created and faces.

 
And if you want first hand testimony, well, it’s legally dubious that Mark Mulvaney refuses to testify. Because if you are saying you want first hand testimony, he has it, but you know what, he knows, and in fact, any attorney of any salt, would tell you that if the facts were in favor of the President, MM would testify tomorrow and twice on Sunday. The reality is that he doesn’t and he too does not want to risk perjury—period.
 
I’m missing somehow?? Tell you what, if you think you could get into my law school, start smashing that LSAT and let’s what you got. Until that day, review the following, at it makes clear the profound legal jeopardy Sondland has created and faces.


Dude, you get so needlessly aggressive. And you sound like a prick to be honest... But on a serious note, is English your second language? Like honestly? Cause you seem to go off and attack people when you don’t really understand what’s being said. I stated very clearly that I understand the concept of Sondland getting in trouble for not telling the truth. What you seem to keep missing is the fact that it looks shady that one has to revise their testimony in the face of the threat of perjury. That was my only point, and you start attacking me and my intelligence, when you in fact are the one flying off the handle about something that wasn’t even argued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Dude, you get so aggressive needlessly. And you sound like a prick to be honest... But on a serious note, is English your second language? Like honestly? Cause you seem to go off and attack people when you don’t really understand what’s being said. I stated very clearly that I understand the concept of Sondland getting in trouble for not telling the truth. What you seem to keep missing is the fact that it looks shady that one has to revise their testimony in the face of the threat of perjury. That was my only point, and you start attacking me and my intelligence, when you in fact are the one flying off the handle about something that wasn’t even argued.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In almost every comment to everyone here, you leave a snide passive aggressive remark, which to be honest sounds like you are a coward in real life, and for that, I don’t let you pass, not once, and will also do so—so there.

And your point has no merit, as it a purely a matter of legally consequence, not an optic of fairness.
 
In almost every comment to everyone here, you leave a snide passive aggressive remark, which to be honest sounds like you are a coward in real life, and for that, I don’t let you pass, not once, and will also do so—so there.

And your point has no merit, as it a purely a matter of legally consequence, not an optic of fairness.

No, not really. It usually goes that I make a comment about X, you start going off on topic Y, and then when I point that out, you claim I’m racist or something, or you brag about your children or your law school. Something like that...

I’m sorry you didn’t understand my point, but I think most people will see Sondland as at least somewhat compromised since he had to revise his testimony. Most honest people don’t have to ‘remember’ the truth AFTER they testify and go back and amend their testimony.

It’s just funny that I make and innocuous comment about Sondland forgetting to tell the whole truth the first time, and you get angry for some reason and turn it into a battle and bragging about your law school.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
No, not really. It usually goes that I make a comment about X, you start going off on topic Y, and then when I point that out, you claim I’m racist or something, or you brag about your children or your law school. Something like that...

I’m sorry you didn’t understand my point, but I think most people will see Sondland as at least somewhat compromised since he had to revise his testimony. Most honest people don’t have to ‘remember’ the truth AFTER they testify and go back and amend their testimony.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So what, the bottomline is the truth, that’s what it should always be. And who is most people—because even the editors of the National Review have said that he had to correct myself, lest risk the potential of perjury. Did you even read through this, he HAD to revise his comments, as they did not conform nor were they consistent with other documents both his and other involved individuals.

You have a lot of opinions, but it’s profoundly obvious you have no nuanced legal knowledge about the granular workings of this proceeding or how the law works in an impeachment investigation.
 
Did you even read through this, he HAD to revise his comments, as they did not conform nor were they consistent with other documents both his and other involved individuals.

[emoji37][emoji2962][emoji37][emoji2962][emoji37][emoji2962][emoji37][emoji2962][emoji37]

I’m sorry, I can’t help you understand any more clearly what I said.

Just read your quote above 10 times and think if those circumstances you stated make Sondland seem credible or not. That was my only point. And I’m done belaboring this one with you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, not really. It usually goes that I make a comment about X, you start going off on topic Y, and then when I point that out, you claim I’m racist or something, or you brag about your children or your law school. Something like that...

I’m sorry you didn’t understand my point, but I think most people will see Sondland as at least somewhat compromised since he had to revise his testimony. Most honest people don’t have to ‘remember’ the truth AFTER they testify and go back and amend their testimony.

It’s just funny that I make and innocuous comment about Sondland forgetting to tell the whole truth the first time, and you get angry for some reason and turn it into a battle and bragging about your law school.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
And yeah, I’m not going to let little some little peep-squeak (cause I know you don’t talk to folks like this in person) tell me about the law and how it works and they have no direct experience or formal education in such matters.,in short, as to the law, your uniformed opinions are literally based on nothing.

Like I said, not so much about your interactions with me, but with others, I gonna come after your weak sh#t every time....bet on it.
 
And yeah, I’m not going to let little some little peep-squeak (cause I know you don’t talk to folks like this in person) tell me about the law and how it works and they have no direct experience or formal education in such matters.,in short, as to the law, your uniformed opinions are literally based on nothing.

Like I said, not so much about your interactions with me, but with others, I gonna come after your weak sh#t every time....bet on it.

It’s a good thing my post was about public opinion and not the law then.

Lol.

Love ya bud.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I suggest you read the thoroughly conservative writings on Andrew McCarthy of the National Review, which is basically a legal take down of the White House.


I read Andy McCarthy frequently. He is very knowledgeable and articulate. He stated in the article you referenced that the president is not entitled To 6th amendment protections afforded criminal investigations since Impeachment is solely under control by the House of Representatives, thereby being a political process rather than a criminal one. He also pointed out that the House Intelligence Comittee hearings are like Grand Jury hearings where 2nd and 3rd hand testimony can lead to first hand testimony. He also points out the Whistle Blower is not a whistle blower in the Statutory sense and hence not afforded anonymity protection under the statute. I'm not sure how you can conclude this article represents a " Legal takedown of the White House" Can you elaborate?
 
I read Andy McCarthy frequently. He is very knowledgeable and articulate. He stated in the article you referenced that the president is not entitled To 6th amendment protections afforded criminal investigations since Impeachment is solely under control by the House of Representatives, thereby being a political process rather than a criminal one. He also pointed out that the House Intelligence Comittee hearings are like Grand Jury hearings where 2nd and 3rd hand testimony can lead to first hand testimony. He also points out the Whistle Blower is not a whistle blower in the Statutory sense and hence not afforded anonymity protection under the statute. I'm not sure how you can conclude this article represents a " Legal takedown of the White House" Can you elaborate?
And so I quote directly from AM:

Moreeover, because the Constitution wholly vests the process of impeachment in the House, and the conduct of impeachment trials in the Senate, those chambers have plenary authority over the respective proceedings. No court has the power to tell the House or Senate what quantum of due process must be afforded to an official in an impeachment case. No one can make Congress apply the Sixth Amendment.


Finally, even when the Sixth Amendment does apply (at a criminal trial), the confrontation it guarantees is the ability to cross-examine the witnesses the prosecution calls to establish its case. It does not extend to other people (e.g., tipsters, others who’ve provided hearsay information to investigators). It is very common in the investigative stage for police to receive damning information about a suspect from second- and third-hand sources. That information is investigated, which is how the police and prosecutors locate the first-hand witnesses who are called at the eventual trial. There is no right to confront witnesses the prosecutor does not call, even if they have provided accusatory information.

This goes directly to the multiple times the President he has both a right of confrontation and that he is not being afforded due process-he is not. Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches—that is not the case at present.
 
And so I quote directly from AM:

Moreeover, because the Constitution wholly vests the process of impeachment in the House, and the conduct of impeachment trials in the Senate, those chambers have plenary authority over the respective proceedings. No court has the power to tell the House or Senate what quantum of due process must be afforded to an official in an impeachment case. No one can make Congress apply the Sixth Amendment.


Finally, even when the Sixth Amendment does apply (at a criminal trial), the confrontation it guarantees is the ability to cross-examine the witnesses the prosecution calls to establish its case. It does not extend to other people (e.g., tipsters, others who’ve provided hearsay information to investigators). It is very common in the investigative stage for police to receive damning information about a suspect from second- and third-hand sources. That information is investigated, which is how the police and prosecutors locate the first-hand witnesses who are called at the eventual trial. There is no right to confront witnesses the prosecutor does not call, even if they have provided accusatory information.

This goes directly to the multiple times the President he has both a right of confrontation and that he is not being afforded due process-he is not. Constitutional protections for due process apply when the state is attempting to deprive a person of “life, liberty, or property.” That’s why we have trials before we render civil or criminal judgments. That’s why due process is mandatory before state-mandated punishment in campus sexual assault tribunals. As a general rule, when the state is attempting to deprive you of rights you’d otherwise enjoy, due process attaches—that is not the case at present.
I read all that, thank you for posting it to the forum. I would hope you could explain how this is a " legal takedown of the White House," in your words.
 
As far as "proof," let's not forget that the whitehouse, OMB, and the state department are withholding thousands of memos and emails which directly involve the matter at hand, and they're doing this in defiance of a legally issued subpoena.

Not to mention we have not heard testimony from Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton, and Pompeo, or any other toadies.

Don't cry about proof or hearsay if you're not gonna let the proof or first-hand witnesses be presented.
 
Last edited:
As far as "proof," let's not forget that the whitehouse, OMB, and the state department are withholding thousands of memos and emails which directly involve the matter at hand, and they're doing this in defiance of a legally issued subpoena.

Not to mention we have not heard testimony from Mulvaney, Giuliani, Perry, Bolton, and Pompeo, or any other toadies.

Don't cry about proof if you're not gonna let the proof be presented.

My statements were in regard to testimony thus far. I’ll wait and see what comes of the rest of the testimonies, which is not what others seem to be doing who have already convicted Trump of treason with no real evidence. If true evidence comes to light, impeach him, but so far it’s just been a lot of disgruntled employees who seem to have heard from a friend who heard from a friend who....

Unless you’ve seen different thus far. I’ve asked a few people if they’d seen evidence in testimony thus far that proves anything and I’ve yet to hear anything concrete. Have you seen any real evidence against Trump yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
A few other points for those who only watch Fox:

1. An attempted crime is still a crime.

2. If Trump was of such noble motivations and only cared about corruption, why was his team so insistent that Zelensky's investigation of Biden had to be made public on CNN immediately instead of maintaining the presumption of innocence by carrying out the investigation thoroughly and quietly?

3. Why would we believe that Trump was ever going to release the aid to Ukraine when the aid was only ever released 2 days after the whistleblower complaint came out?
 
Last edited:
A few other points for those who only watch Fox:

1. An attempted crime is still a crime.

2. If Trump was of such noble motivations and only cared about corruption, why was his team so insistent that Zelensky's investigation of Biden had to be made public on CNN immediately instead of maintaining the presumption of innocence carrying out the investigation thoroughly and quietly?

3. Why would we believe that Trump was ever going to release the aid to Ukraine when the aid was only ever released 2 days after the whistleblower complaint came out?

So is that a no then?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Vindman also testified Tuesday that the contents of the July 25 call differed slightly from what is stated in the official transcript that the White House released late last month — including that Zelensky referenced Burisma, and not just a nameless company, when Trump pressed him to investigate former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, for five years."

 
"I would like you to do us a favor though"

That it?

That’s pretty weak evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It’s really no evidence at all if you ask me. (Maybe Boo can give his legal expertise if that counts as bribery).

When I call up a colleague and say “Hey, can you do me a favor and go grab another 100 of prop?” am I asking for a quid pro quo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
"Vindman also testified Tuesday that the contents of the July 25 call differed slightly from what is stated in the official transcript that the White House released late last month — including that Zelensky referenced Burisma, and not just a nameless company, when Trump pressed him to investigate former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Hunter Biden sat on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, for five years."


So Vindeman claims show that Zelensky knew the name of the company lil Biden worked for? And?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It’s really no evidence at all if you ask me.

Good thing no one of import is asking you, since you're apparently too simple to understand how "give me shady thing X and I'll give you thing Y which you very desperately want" is bribery (or maybe extortion? I'm not a career criminal like Manafort or Stone or other trump thugs)
 
Last edited:
Matty is like all those sycophants and fanboys of Nixon whose opinions didn't change until SCOTUS compelled release of the tapes. I wonder if SCOTUS nowadays would compel the release of all the documentary evidence surrounding the Ukraine scandal, or compel testimony from the first-hand players. And if they did, would the most lawless administration in a generation even comply?
 
Matty is like all those sycophants and fanboys of Nixon whose opinions didn't change until SCOTUS compelled release of the tapes. I wonder if SCOTUS nowadays would compel the release of all the documentary evidence surrounding the Ukraine scandal, or compel testimony from the first-hand players. And if they did, would the most lawless administration in a generation even comply?

You know, you guys always seem to resort to personal attacks when you don’t have much else to go on. It’s a pretty weak debate tactic if you ask me (and I know, good thing no ones asking me).

There’s plenty of time and testimony left, and it’s ok to say the evidence thus far is pretty weak. You don’t gotta be all TDSing and scream treason cause he used a phrase people use all the time when conversing with people. You can say you expect more concrete evidence to come in soon, that’s a fine position.

Question, was it all impeachable when Obama got hot mic’d about having more flexibility with Putin after the election? Smelled pretty fishy to me.


And fishy smell seems to be enough for some of y’all to cry for impeachment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That it?

That’s pretty weak evidence of bribery or quid pro quo. It’s really no evidence at all if you ask me. (Maybe Boo can give his legal expertise if that counts as bribery).

When I call up a colleague and say “Hey, can you do me a favor and go grab another 100 of prop?” am I asking for a quid pro quo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Federal law states that a public official is guilty of bribery if he or she “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

For me, and I think many others, all the elements of the crime are present.

One it’s obvious Trump is a public official. For argument sake, I guess Its debatable about whether his demand to Zelensky — “I would like you to do us a favor though” — was direct or indirect. Appears straightforward and unambiguous to me. Next, it’s clear Trump was demanding or seeking something of value for himself. He asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, which would benefit Trump by soiling the reputation of the potential Democratic nominee....so there you have it.
 
it’s ok to say the evidence thus far is pretty weak.

If 5+ people of unimpeachable character with long, clean service records corroborating the whistleblower account is weak, I guess that's your (stupid) opinion. If John Bolton instructing Hill to go to the NSC lawyer and tell them exactly what was happening while characterizing it as a "drug deal" is weak, no one can make you pull your head out of the sand. If you think multiple people who state that Sondland was sitting at a damn public restaurant table in Kyiv and they overheard potus asking about investigations and Sondland replying that Z will do anything....if you think they are all part of some conspiracy then no one is going to make a cultist like you believe.

Even barring all that, in the memcon, Z says "hey what about that aid?" T: "I need a favor though, rambles on about crowdstrike and biden" . Aid never comes until the whistleblower compels them to release. That sequence alone is impeachable.

Proof is what you want, right? Do you think the WH, OMB, and State should release all the related documents? Do you think all the aforementioned firsthand players including Giuliani's indicted goons should testify? If not, then stfu about proof.


Btw, Obama was talking to Medvedev. At least try to get your 7 year old what-about-isms right.
 
Last edited:
Federal law states that a public official is guilty of bribery if he or she “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official act.”

For me, and I think many others, all the elements of the crime are present.

One it’s obvious Trump is a public official. For argument sake, I guess Its debatable about whether his demand to Zelensky — “I would like you to do us a favor though” — was direct or indirect. Appears straightforward and unambiguous to me. Next, it’s clear Trump was demanding or seeking something of value for himself. He asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, which would benefit Trump by soiling the reputation of the potential Democratic nominee....so there you have it.

It’s your assertion that it would necessarily benefit trump by bringing light to Biden’s corruption. One, you’d have to answer why Trump was asking about things for Zelensky to look into that nothing to do with Biden, like crowdstrike, or was that just 4d chess by Trump? And also you have to prove that it’s not the US governments responsibility to investigate foreign corruption period. Cause if it is, then how is it wrong for Trump to ask Zelensky to look into pretty obvious corruption with Burisma? Third, Biden has a good shot to not even be the nominee, so how would whatever Zelensky might find help Trump unless he’s running against Biden, which is far from a certainty?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If by 4d chess you mean he mentions it like a paragraph later, and says "the other thing" in reference to the fact he's not done asking favors

trump-phone-transcript-ukraine-promo-1569369870401-facebookJumbo-v5.jpg
 
Btw, Obama was talking to Medvedev. At least try to get your 7 year old what-about-isms right.

So when Medvedev said he would “transmit this information to Vladimir” I guess that was a different Vlad? Cmon man.

So what are you gonna say when he doesn’t get impeached? It was all a republican scam or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So when Medvedev said he would “transmit this information to Vladimir” I guess that was a different Vlad? Cmon man.

So what are you gonna say when he doesn’t get impeached? It was all a republican scam or something?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're part of the most craven group of individuals in American politics since Nixon. Lindsey has already said he's not going to listen to any testimony or read the transcripts of any testimony....because he's an abject partisan hack. I fully expect he'll be acquitted in the Senate.
 
You're part of the most craven group of individuals in American politics since Nixon. Lindsey has already said he's not going to listen to any testimony or read the transcripts of any testimony....because he's an abject partisan hack. I fully expect he'll be acquitted in the Senate.

Is it every other post you’re gonna go with a personal attack? Or every third? I just wanna know where we stand going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
If 5+ people of unimpeachable character with long, clean service records corroborating the whistleblower account is weak, I guess that's your (stupid) opinion

And by this do you mean a bunch of liberals who were either bitter about not being part of the in crowd, mad about being dismissed from their post, or had been plotting an impeachment from day one post election?

6 of one half a dozen...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And by this do you mean a bunch of liberals who were either bitter about not being part of the in crowd, mad about being dismissed from their post, or had been plotting an impeachment from day one post election?

6 of one half a dozen...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lol that's your theory about career public servants? Pathetic that that's the best smears you can come up with. Any evidence for your claims? As for being liberals....


Taylor- appointed by Bush
Kent- HW
Yovanovitch- W. Bush
Vindman- Trump (national security council)
Hill- Trump
Sondland - Trump (and donated 1 million f'ing dollars to his inauguration)


You really are quite delusional
 
Is it every other post you’re gonna go with a personal attack? Or every third? I just wanna know where we stand going forward.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does craven not describe the group you're part of? Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly and accused his dad of killing JFK. Now Cruz licks Trump's boots and begs for his endorsement.

Trump called Jeff Sessions a dumb southerner, made fun of his accent, and mocked him relentlessly for months on Twitter for recusing himself. Now Sessions is putting out campaign ads claiming how much he loves and respects Trump and how he never crossed him .

Trump released Lindsey's personal cell phone number on. national. television. We all know how Lindsey acts now .

What term would you use?
 
Does craven not describe the group you're part of? Trump called Ted Cruz's wife ugly and accused his dad of killing JFK. Now Cruz licks Trump's boots and begs for his endorsement.

Trump called Jeff Sessions a dumb southerner, made fun of his accent, and mocked him relentlessly for months on Twitter for recusing himself. Now Sessions is putting out campaign ads claiming how much he loves and respects Trump and how he never crossed him .

Trump released Lindsey's personal cell phone number on. national. television. We all know how Lindsey acts now .

What term would you use?

Matty’s fine thanks [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Lol that's your theory about career public servants? Pathetic that that's the best smears you can come up with. Any evidence for your claims? As for being liberals....


Taylor- appointed by Bush
Kent- HW
Yovanovitch- W. Bush
Vindman- Trump (national security council)
Hill- Trump
Sondland - Trump (and donated 1 million f'ing dollars to his inauguration)


You really are quite delusional
Indeed. Most of these public servants are just that—servants, a feature that trump knows nothing about. Most are highly distinguished and have served in more R administrations than D. They are in large part, highly experienced, objective, dutiful, measured, bright and have the best interests of America. Like the federal reserve, it (foreign diplomacy corp) should take partisan and/or short term goals with suspicion and short shrift.
 
Matty’s fine thanks [emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't sell yourself short. Based on your valiant online Trump defense where you ignore facts, gaslight, and spin with abandon, you'd firmly be in the Stone camp. Loyal to the bitter end. I mean, in jail, but still very loyal.
 
Don't sell yourself short. Based on your valiant online Trump defense where you ignore facts, gaslight, and spin with abandon, you'd firmly be in the Stone camp. Loyal to the bitter end. I mean, in jail, but still very loyal.

I’m not very short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On a side note, I find it interesting the Trump’s approval has gone up 4 points to 50% since the impeachment started. And his approval is higher now than Obama was at the same point in his presidency.


Wonder if that’s cause people are seeing this as a partisan hack job sequel to the Russian hoax and the joke that was the Kavanaugh lynching, or because they see unbiased people giving clear, evidence laden testimony attesting to the President’s shady dealings?

Hmmmmm....[emoji3166]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
On a side note, I find it interesting the Trump’s approval has gone up 4 points to 50% since the impeachment started. And his approval is higher now than Obama was at the same point in his presidency.


Wonder if that’s cause people are seeing this as a partisan hack job sequel to the Russian hoax and the joke that was the Kavanaugh lynching, or because they see unbiased people giving clear, evidence laden testimony attesting to the President’s shady dealings?

Hmmmmm....[emoji3166]




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Hmmmn, I find it interesting that you cherry pick a Rassmussen, aka, known as the pollsters to the R, when a combined poll (Of over a dozen polls) done by 538 had results that were more closely bunched at 8-9 points lower and making your poll an outlier and aberration.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.