OUCH DTARD, WAY OUCH
LOOKS LIKE YOU SHOULD SPEND LESS TIME CRYING ON HERE AND EVEN LESS TIME EATING WHATEVER THE MEDIA SPOON FEEDS YOU
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
These were fact witnesses.
Ehhhh. Sounds like you might want to take up some of your assertions up with Reuters:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/g...e Reuters Impeachment Hearings 11 15 2019.pdf
Then why argue against my "everyone" take.
"The sample includes 467 Democrats, 434 Republicans, and 115 independents" Using these numbers, Democrats made up a plurality, not a majority, of those polled. Roughly 46%. Republicans, 43%.
given that more voters identify as independent vs either party
Take it up with the polling group and Reuters.
yes, fact witnesses that were asked repeatedly to provide their perception. the only facts they had on their side was the fact they heard the conversations. the rest of what they had to say is conjecture.If you believe showing the pages of testimony where "bribery" isn't found is relevant, then you probably believe Schiff's version of the transcript is a verbatim account.
These were fact witnesses. They weren't asked if Trump is guilty of bribery or "crimes and misdemeanors". That's not why they were testifying.
However, witnesses have used the following to describe this episode:
- Counter to stated US foreign policy
- Against US and Ukraine security interests
- Inappropriate
- Wrong
Damn....yore getting all worked up. WTF is article 25?yes, fact witnesses that were asked repeatedly to provide their perception. the only facts they had on their side was the fact they heard the conversations. the rest of what they had to say is conjecture.
how the witnesses - one of which is well known to be a trump hater based on prior actions - describes anything relative is just that . . . their description, their opinion, their conjecture.
dems have nothing. NOTHING. make no mistake about it, though, it's not what they do or don't have. they've already decided trump is guilty and they ARE going to impeach him in the house, it's just a matter of what bullshit they can come up with to do so, which is what this fishing expedition is all about. their problem is that when they catch the sunfish they're after, the senate will simply throw it back. and, by that time, the dems will have done so much damage to themselves in the public's eye, trump will be a shoe-in in 2020.
bookmarkit . . . you can cry about it later.
you pansies have cried about article 25, russia collusion, racist, xenophobe, ukraine, back to article 25 over the past day or three. you're a never ending revolving door that keeps sneaking back up on you and cracking you in the ass. you're a got damn joke. even more pathetic, yore too stupid to see it.
Abraham Lincoln?Who was the last Republican President that didn’t have articles of impeachment filed against him?
ho lee shit, yore even dumber than I figured.WTF is article 25?
if worked up is tearing your bullshit post to shreds and theoretically shoving it up your proverbial ass, then color me guilty.Damn....yore getting all worked up.
And look at you.....lordy.
as I've said all along, the transcript doesn't lie...the dems star witness said as much today while while providing his opinion on what it sounded like.Bottom line: did Trump do it? Is he innocent or guilty? If he did do it, is it an impeachable offense?
Yore funnyho lee shit, yore even dumber than I figured.
if worked up is tearing your bullshit post to shreds and theoretically shoving it up your proverbial ass, then color me guilty.
as I've said all along, the transcript doesn't lie...the dems star witness said as much today while while providing his opinion on what it sounded like.
i know, @Raoul Duke MU, i know . . . SOURCE!!!!
do you think they faked the videoed interview? possible, i guess . . .Well yeah, you used a well-known conspiracy theory spreading website ran by a convicted felon who doesn't even have the balls to use his real name. In fewer words: FAKE NEWS. C'mon....you are smarter than this shit.
Satanic ritual lulz.
do you think they faked the videoed interview? possible, i guess . . .
LMFAO! we all have our crazies . . . (at least, in this case, i sure as hell hope so)
@Raoul Duke MU what's your thoughts on this Q-Anon shit?
hell of it is, can you imagine the outcry from the liberals and people like yourself when the "crookedest SOB in history" is impeached then reelected in 2020? got damn, it's gone be great, i tell ya. will make the 2016 meltdown pale in comparison.Absolutely. And why not? It's not like we all don't have HD video recorders in our pockets. Millions of people daily make and upload content.
Of course. It's like the anti-vaxxer movement is a mix of Bible Thumpers and Enviro-nutjobs.
I've said before I think a LOT of the ultra-rich and powerful are into kinky shit, and possibly illegal shit. Because when you can have anything or anyone, you get bored and push the limits. Are they drawing Pentagrams in blood and summoning demons? That's fvcking ridiculous. The truly amoral believe in neither God nor Satan.
Q-Anon, Pizzagate and more Satan worshiping horseshit. It's Alex Jones type bullshit.
You won't like this answer, but when you have the crookedest POTUS in history it is not a stretch to think he will be investigated by Congress. I'm not sure when you were born, but in my lifetime the majority of POTUS's have had major scandals and people jailed.
Nixon : crook
Ford : worst thing I could find (had to look, I was very young and his administration was notable only for the Watergate Pardons) was this: Secretary of Agriculture Earl Butz (R) was asked privately why the party of Lincoln was not able to attract more blacks. Butz replied: "I'll tell you what the coloreds want. It's three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit." Butz resigned soon afterwards on October 4, 1976.[524]
Reagan: IranContra, among other things.
Bush 1: Not much, IranContra pardons, so what.
Clinton: Impeached.
Bush 2: A clusterfvck. Two jailed, Rove damn near got indicted.
Obama: Relatively clean, but his AG was a clusterfvck with that whole Mexican cartel gun thing. But they tried their damnedest to blame Hillary for anything and everything.
Trump: crookedest SOB in history. I mean just personally crooked, he never needed politics to be a crook, unlike Nixon, who probably would have been just a sleazy lawyer without politics.
Six out of eight being investigated....yeah that 4Chan poster you quoted really went out on a limb!
Obama: Relatively clean, but his AG was a clusterfvck with that whole Mexican cartel gun thing. But they tried their damnedest to blame Hillary for anything and everything.
yes, yes it does. got him now?Strange... This does say quid pro quo
Hilarious....I posted a video of Sondland clearly stating the meeting was contingent on an investigation announcement into Burissma.....Oh no!!! Hilarious. You are a puppet
I read the transcript a few weeks back.... and Trump asks for a investigation into the Bidens.
i'm certain you'll have no issues providing video evidence of other "folks" who have said there was a qpq who were in on the call. chop chop.You still chanting, "read the transcript"? Have you added the T-shirt to yore wardrobe? It shore is a handsome garment.
I assume we can conclude you'll use this argument no matter how many folks testify there was a quid pro quo.
I read the transcript a few weeks back.... and Trump asks for a investigation into the Bidens.
don't worry, they'll be back to doubting his health when he makes another trip to the hospital for a routine checkup. oh wait, that just happened . . . routine checkup turned into "heart attack!!"I believe he says something to the effect of, "maybe you should look into that..."
To prove a "this for that" scenario, it's odd that the Ukraine wasn't even aware of a hold up in the funds. Also, sounds like they (Ukrainians) are denying quid pro quo.
Just because you want so badly for something to be true, that doesn't make it so. You guys have to admit if there was something illegal about what transpired and I don't understand at this point how you would still maintain your argument of quid pro quo, or even the latest attempt, "bribery."
So...I guess the transcript is the only piece of evidence available at this time?I believe he says something to the effect of, "maybe you should look into that..."
To prove a "this for that" scenario, it's odd that the Ukraine wasn't even aware of a hold up in the funds. Also, sounds like they (Ukrainians) are denying quid pro quo.
Just because you want so badly for something to be true, that doesn't make it so. You guys have to admit if there was something illegal about what transpired and I don't understand at this point how you would still maintain your argument of quid pro quo, or even the latest attempt, "bribery."