Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not the "perception of a speech" but the attempt to dismiss a crime for preposterous reasons.
I apologize if that went over your head. I'll try harder to dumb down my analogies in the future so Trump supporters can understand them.
That is your perception.
If all you can come up with is an insult, I understand your inability to converse in areas beyond your comprehension. That is usually an indication of weakness and /or defeat.
What it would achieve is giving Donny & Mini-me a chance to smear, insult, abuse, bully and tear down the person as fast as their vindictive little fingers can tweet. I'm sure Trump would also use a driveway rant and rallies to abuse the person further--so tacky.
That is your perception.
If all you can come up with is an insult, I understand your inability to converse in areas beyond your comprehension. That is usually an indication of weakness and /or defeat.
What it would achieve is giving Donny & Mini-me a chance to smear, insult, abuse, bully and tear down the person as fast as their vindictive little fingers can tweet. I'm sure Trump would also use a driveway rant and rallies to abuse the person further--so tacky.
i dont get it. what is the purpose of trying to get the whistleblower to testify achieve? everything has been proven true and corroborated by other witnesses. lets say, for the sake of argument, that the republicans out him/her and dig into their past and find some issue in their life to smear them on. does that prove the whistleblower report false? does that make all the other witnesses go away. of course not. are republicans and people really going to sit and say they cant believe the other 6 testimonies because they dont know who the whistleblower is?
This is both a red herring and a desire for vengeance.
The investigation has moved on, and the substance of the original communication has been substantiated multiple times.
i think it's interesting that most responses in support of trump just talk about the phone call and it being nothing. on the surface, i may agree with you that if that phone call happened AND NOTHING ELSE, i would think the democrats are reaching and just sore losers. but we don't just have the phone call. if you are going to point to the transcript and say it is innocent and doesn't mean anything then please also include your reasoning as to why aid was help up by trump. please include your response to why a personal attorney to the president was meeting with Ukraine officials on this topic. Please include why this didn't go through official DOJ channels or through the ukrainian diplomats. why was everyone whose job it is to form the US policy and those who work directly with that country all left in the dark. if this was all innocent and open, then Trump should have had no problems crossing his T's and dotting his I's and putting everything in writing.
Do you dispute that the only reason the Democrats started this impeachment inquiry is because it potentially implicates Joe Biden's son? The Democrats don't care about some poor Eastern European country, the phone call or "quid pro quo."
Their only concern is protecting Joe Biden. If his son were not involved in this, then there would be no impeachment inquiry, plain and simple.
What it would achieve is giving Donny & Mini-me a chance to smear, insult, abuse, bully and tear down the person as fast as their vindictive little fingers can tweet. I'm sure Trump would also use a driveway rant and rallies to abuse the person further--so tacky.
And you should be able to make up lies and attempt a coup without being found out right
We know without question:
- The whislte liar did not hear the phone call
- the Whistle Liar didn't come close to getting the phone call right
- The whistle liar is somehow involved in the conspiracy to depose the President and made up this lie because he/she objected to the policies of the President (we have elections 4 years to address that)
There is evidence. Show where the evidence came from. Be specific. No. We will not take your word for it. The burden of proof is on the Dems.
Then you can tell us all about what law may have been broken. But wear ear plugs. The laughter will be loud.
You said evidence was obtained illegally. I asked, "what evidence was attained illegally?" And this is your answer? Gotta love that Trumpian pretzel logic.
Do you dispute that the only reason the Democrats started this impeachment inquiry is because it potentially implicates Joe Biden's son? The Democrats don't care about some poor Eastern European country, the phone call or "quid pro quo."
Their only concern is protecting Joe Biden. If his son were not involved in this, then there would be no impeachment inquiry, plain and simple.
The concern is that our President tried to extort another country to get dirt on a potential political presidential opponent. No one doubts that Hunter Biden got his job because of his name, and that a system that allows this is wrong. But no one has come up with any breaking of the law. There are unsubstantiated allegations, but Biden Sr. Seems to have been acting in the interest of our country’s and our allies’ preferences and policies.
I don’t like the Biden mess, but there is no credible showing that he extorted anything for his political gain, though he apparently bragged about his accomplishment later. Biden is not my choice for presidential candidate.
DJT is the president. His conversation is documented. His attempt to extort is known. His damning conversation was placed in a secure server because it was obvious that it was “troubling.” There was no push for impeachment until this conversation was revealed. Pelosi said repeatedly before that she was not impeaching.
This investigation is not a “lynching” or a “witch hunt.” It is an investigation into something that happened and that seems to be an example of DJY’s violating the oath of office he took at his inaugural.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
