Impeachment
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I guess I should be used to it by now, but what really bugs me about this is the talking point that Republicans have been shut out of the hearings and unable to ask questions. It was said in the segment from Meadows linked above, I heard it repeated today on Hannity’s show.
It’s just so obviously, transparently wrong, and so easily disproven, that it’s pretty easy to use as a litmus test for who’s full of ****.
It’s just so obviously, transparently wrong, and so easily disproven, that it’s pretty easy to use as a litmus test for who’s full of ****.
For starters - How can you listen to Hannity? I agree with him and its infuriating.
Secondly, it now has been reported that only Schiff can call witnesses and has directed the witnesses to not answer specific questions (which I'm sure are mostly Republican).
I just want to be sure where you all stand.
This new 'witness' is valid even though they directly advised Ukraine on how to deal with the current administration, or an extension of the administration? There is no issue with this in your guys eyes?
Also, who cares what people 'feel' about the conversation. We have the damn thing in front of our faces.
This is all so.....desperate.
This new 'witness' is valid even though they directly advised Ukraine on how to deal with the current administration, or an extension of the administration? There is no issue with this in your guys eyes?
Also, who cares what people 'feel' about the conversation. We have the damn thing in front of our faces.
This is all so.....desperate.
Runnin
Well-known member
Where is this conversation in front of your eyes? That was a fictional version of the conversation composed by his lawyers, meaning this was as much of the truth that they felt they could defend.
Let's see the true transcript, if it still exists.
So the preparation of this transcript was fictional? Why is that and what supports this claim? Has anyone denied the truth of the transcript?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
I assume you’re getting this from the piece that said that Vindman was asked by Ukrainian officials how they should deal with Giuliani. I have no idea why you’d consider this to be improper. Giuliani is not “the administration,” nor is he “an extension of the administration.” He was doing off-books stuff which was at odds with the established policy and the relationships that existed around that policy. Trying to discredit him based on that is paper-thin, and suggesting that meant he was “advising” the govt in any improper way is just plain silly.
As for the “transcript,” V apparently testified that at least one of the “...” sections was apparently Trump continuing to talk about Biden, which further undercuts the talking point that Trump’s interest was. 2016, not 2020.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
As for where we stand...based on what we know, I’d pretty comfortably stand on the substance of the testimony of Taylor, Vindman, Hill, etc. I take your statement to mean that you’d support the credibility of Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman, and whoever was paying them.
In what universe does it make sense for another country to get advise on how to deal with the president's counsel? Vjndman works for the president. End of story.
Bidens corruption is a key entry point into Ukraines overall role in the 2016 election and HRCs campaign.
We have statements that aren't subjected to questions.
None of this even matters. I don't care how Vindman felt. We didn't vote for him.
[Tw]1189356293540237312[/tw]
And this is coming from a WaPo reporter.
There is even less here then Russia which is proving to be nothing. That's how pathetic this revitalized effort to impeach is.
All of this is of course a way to divert Americas attention as to what was found with the Obama admin which c in conveniently Julio you have not addressed.
And this is coming from a WaPo reporter.
There is even less here then Russia which is proving to be nothing. That's how pathetic this revitalized effort to impeach is.
All of this is of course a way to divert Americas attention as to what was found with the Obama admin which c in conveniently Julio you have not addressed.
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
The President’s personal lawyer (and we’re not even clear if he was acting in that capacity or not) is not a valid instrument of American foreign policy. He’s not elected, appointed/confirmed to the position. You don’t even know who’s paying him, and his indicted cohorts. As Amb Taylor testified, there was an official policy track and an unofficial one. No surprise there was confusion on how to deal with the latter. And what reason would undermine his testimony?
Julio3000
<B>A Chip Off the Old Rock</B>
So, to be clear: Giuliani, Parnas, Fruman (and whoever is paying them) are the good guys here?
I didn't say that but you have ascribed goodness to the others quickly. Similar to the assumptions you have to the fbi which has proven to be wrong.
Now guiliani isn't tied to Trump? This is absurd. At this time, for better or for worse, everyone knows that Trump uses Giuliani for all sorts of matters. To pretend like that is not the world we live in is willful ignorance. Vin was providing advice on how to deal with an agent of the president. He has no authority to do that
Runnin
Well-known member
The transcript was "prepared" for public consumption by WH lawyers. You do the math.
Orange man bad it is
cajunrevenge
Well-known member
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html
And Vindman says the transcript left out crucial words and phrases.
And Vindman says the transcript left out crucial words and phrases.
Runnin
Well-known member
Not only Orange Man, but everyone around him is bad too. You have to burn you bridges by publicly lying or otherwise becoming just as guilty as him to stay in his orbit.