trump impeachment watch thread

[boutons_deux]

Thank goodness real attorneys are out here doing extended questioning.

Echoes of the prosecutor Barry Berke destroying Levandowski.

[RandomGuy]

This is such a clear cut case of bribery and extortion Trumpistas are going to talk about everything but the facts of the case.

https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/sho...=1#post9974684

Took me months to get there. But yeah, expect more attacks on the process, and more vile personal destruction of witnesses, up to and including outright breaking the law and talking about the whistleblower, who Trump has it in for particularly.

The only one person defending the "perfect" call.

[ChumpDumper]

Echoes of the prosecutor Barry Berke destroying Levandowski.

I posted I hoped they learned their lesson after that. Looks like they did.

[ducks]

Billions poor in Clinton foundation can then talk to the president talk about bribery

[ChumpDumper]

This is such a clear cut case of bribery and extortion Trumpistas are going to talk about everything but the facts of the case.

Billions poor in Clinton foundation can then talk to the president talk about bribery

[ChumpDumper]

The Fox News commentators are saying it's a good case for impeachment but not sexy enough theater.

[djohn2oo8]

The Fox News commentators are saying it's a good case for impeachment but not sexy enough theater.

Good thing is Independents want the facts not theater.

[djohn2oo8]

At least for public support

[LkrFan]

[ChumpDumper]

That Sondland to Trump call is a bombs . Taylor's staffer needs to take the stand. Sondland might be ed for leaving that out.

[LkrFan]

[Winehole23]

Schizzed out GOP, tbh.

[djohn2oo8]

[LkrFan]

[LkrFan]

"Who was just added" G Shifty!

[ChumpDumper]

Nunes going full Chalupa Grande.

[LkrFan]

[RandomGuy]

That Sondland to Trump call is a bombs . Taylor's staffer needs to take the stand. Sondland might be ed for leaving that out.

Dude lied his ass off in his initial testimony. "refreshed memory"

You know his lawyers told him he had perjured himself. "oh, you mean this extortion"

My guess is that he left out so much that he will still face charges, even after his revised testimony.

[TSA]

until finally...







I did indeed read the link, I wanted to know what your position is. I will assume that your response here means you are going to attempt to stick to the thin lies given before the whistleblowers initial compliant.



We have the method of potential extortion established, now we need to get to the act, and the bribe requested for that extortion. The problem is that we now know it wasn't "US interests" that Trump was worried about, but Trumps own interests. The withholding of funds was the extortion part of Trumps abuse of his office, and the requests for investigation into the debunked Crowdstrike theory and the debunked Biden corruption story are the bribes he wanted in exchange, so that his campaign could have valuable talking points to damage a political rival.

We have established:

1. Presidents should be impeached if they threaten countries for dirt on political opponents.
   
2. Ukraine is vulnerable to threats, because they desperately need our aid, against Russia.
   
3. Ukraine aid was being held up directly by Trump.
   
4. Trump then asked for valuable, material help for his re-election campaign in the form of investigation into the debunked DNC/Crowdstrike conspiracy theory and Biden family.
   

Extortion and Bribery, which, by your own given admission should be impeachable.

There still hasn't been a single witness who has said they were told by Trump military aid was being held by Trump until investigations were announced, not a single one. The closest you've got is one guy testifying he presumed it was being held up for that reason and then testifying Trump never told him that and he didn't know why he presumed it. The rest of the witnesses just heard second and third hand gossip originating from the guy who presumed it.

And at you saying these investigations were not in the U.S. interest and that they've already been debunked. You are so intellectually dishonest it's sad.

Investigating how a former Vice President and now Presidential candidate possibly abused his power of office to help his son make money in Ukraine and China is in the U.S. interests.

Investigating Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

Investigating the DNC colluding with Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

None of what you claim has been debunked, quite the opposite.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

Investigating how the actually debunked Trump/Russia election collusion investigation started is in the U.S. interest.

When you are willing to admit you were full of and none of what you claimed was debunked we can resume our conversation.

[RandomGuy]

Nunes going full Chalupa Grande.

I keep hearing this, but don't quite get the reference? Link? short version? (can guess from context, but would prefer to have a solid understanding)

[RandomGuy]

There still hasn't been a single witness who has said they were told by Trump military aid was being held by Trump until investigations were announced, not a single one. The closest you've got is one guy testifying he presumed it was being held up for that reason and then testifying Trump never told him that and he didn't know why he presumed it. The rest of the witnesses just heard second and third hand gossip originating from the guy who presumed it.

And at you saying these investigations were not in the U.S. interest and that they've already been debunked. You are so intellectually dishonest it's sad.

Investigating how a former Vice President and now Presidential candidate possibly abused his power of office to help his son make money in Ukraine and China is in the U.S. interests.

Investigating Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

Investigating the DNC colluding with Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

None of what you claim has been debunked, quite the opposite.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

Investigating how the actually debunked Trump/Russia election collusion investigation started is in the U.S. interest.

When you are willing to admit you were full of and none of what you claimed was debunked we can resume our conversation.

If the threat wasn't explicit you must acquicit?

Johnny Cochrain strikes again.

Nice children you got there, be a shame if something happened to them.

[Winehole23]

I keep hearing this, but don't quite get the reference? Link? short version? (can guess from context, but would prefer to have a solid understanding)

just guessing

[RandomGuy]

There still hasn't been a single witness who has said they were told by Trump military aid was being held by Trump until investigations were announced, not a single one. The closest you've got is one guy testifying he presumed it was being held up for that reason and then testifying Trump never told him that and he didn't know why he presumed it. The rest of the witnesses just heard second and third hand gossip originating from the guy who presumed it.

And at you saying these investigations were not in the U.S. interest and that they've already been debunked. You are so intellectually dishonest it's sad.

Investigating how a former Vice President and now Presidential candidate possibly abused his power of office to help his son make money in Ukraine and China is in the U.S. interests.

Investigating Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

Investigating the DNC colluding with Ukraine to meddle in the 2016 election is in the U.S. interest.

None of what you claim has been debunked, quite the opposite.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

https://www.thedailybeast.com/ukrain...ger-court-says

Investigating how the actually debunked Trump/Russia election collusion investigation started is in the U.S. interest.

When you are willing to admit you were full of and none of what you claimed was debunked we can resume our conversation.

Can threats be implicit? yes or no.

[TSA]

I keep hearing this, but don't quite get the reference? Link? short version? (can guess from context, but would prefer to have a solid understanding)

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...ackfire-233446

[TSA]

Can threats be implicit? yes or no.

When you are willing to admit you were full of and none of what you claimed was debunked we can resume our conversation