Unamerican Secret Trial presided by Democrat Adam Schiff

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Woody, when the second paragraph says this, you know you are citing a neutral news source:

Vindman, who is obviously all wound up to overturn the 2016 election and have Trump removed from office, could only testify that the transcript of Trump’s now-famous July 25 phone call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky was missing a couple of details.
 
Not claiming a neutral source. But it clearly points out it isn’t open and shut as I have heard so many times. Especially when it mentions Grahams comments about it at the end. Graham is certainly as ‘neutral’ a source as Schiff is.

“I appreciate [Vindman’s] service but I’ve read the transcript and if you add his corrections in it doesn’t change anything for me,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday. His additional notes “don’t change the substance at all.”
 
“I appreciate [Vindman’s] service but I’ve read the transcript and if you add his corrections in it doesn’t change anything for me,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday. His additional notes “don’t change the substance at all.”
That might be, since the transcript shows an abuse of power of trying to get a foreign government to provide dirt on political opponents.
 
That might be, since the transcript shows an abuse of power of trying to get a foreign government to provide dirt on political opponents.
Nope, doesn’t show that. Shows a president trying to get to the bottom of corruption. Without a quid pro quo
 
Last edited:
More deflection. Sad.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
What is sad is the fake desire to get at the truth. You will deflect from any information that doesn’t play to your narrative.

If this information is false then its false. If it’s true you’ll still find a reason to find it unimportant. That is what is sad.
 
What is sad is the fake desire to get at the truth.
We may disagree about the meaning of truth.
The article you published makes it clear that some are hoping to be able to deflect with ad hominem charges against her or him. No such charges change the simple idea in play:
Trump tried to abuse his power to obtain dirt against Biden and sought ot cover up his wrongdoing. If that is the truth, it doesn’t matter who the whistle blower is.

Are you familiar with the Donatist heresy?
 
Last edited:
Yes, we so have a different idea what truth is apparently.

Seems to you only truth that pertains to going after Trump is relevant. Not truth pertaining to people in the Obama administration digging up dirt on an”political opponent”. That is off limits.

Even if Trump did what you think which is doubtful this would point to a lot of other shady stuff going on that is apparently ok since the ends justify the means.

You familiar with hypocrisy?

Go ahead and get your last word. It doesn’t matter because it is pretty clear you have no interest in Congress getting to the bottom of anything that doesn’t advance getting rid of the big bad man. Lol. If your so sure this is nothing then just ignore it and relax and quit crying deflection anytime something comes out that might not defend your narrative.
 
Seems to you only truth that pertains to going after Trump is relevant.
The issue at hand is: Did Trump try to abuse his power to obtain dirt against Biden and sought ot cover up his wrongdoing. The identity of the whistle blower has no relevance to that. If you think it relevance to something else start a thread on that that other topic and help keep the postds here on topic.
 
When did a Trump seek to cover up this alleged wrongdoing.?If you are referring to the phone call the full transcript is there for all to hear ad see.When did he hide anything?
 
Last edited:
If you are referring to the phone call the full transcript is there for all to hear ad se
No. But hasn’t this become clear to all that this is not a “transcript”, even though Trump tires to clam that it is perfectly accurate? I think that the ambassador is referring to efforts to prevent testimony before Schiff’s committee.
 
But hasn’t this become clear to all that this is not a “transcript”, even though Trump tires to clam that it is perfectly accurate?
It seems so far the “transcript” is more or less pretty accurate.
I think that the ambassador is referring to efforts to prevent testimony before Schiff’s committee.
The next angle just might be trying to trump up (pun intended) an obstruction charge; like they did with the Russian collusion hoax.
 
40.png
Woodyl57:
“I appreciate [Vindman’s] service but I’ve read the transcript and if you add his corrections in it doesn’t change anything for me,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said Wednesday. His additional notes “don’t change the substance at all.”
That might be, since the transcript shows an abuse of power of trying to get a foreign government to provide dirt on political opponents.
Maybe a legitimate invesrigation needed to be done regarding Joe Biden and
Ukraine.
 
It seems strange that many here who fell for the Trump/Russia collusion
seem to have no problem with this Russia style inquiry.
 
I don’t understand why the Dems are being so one-sided and on the surface unfair about the rules - it hurts them publicly. They know that the Senate was unlikely to remove the President, which is why this entire charade was simply being done to tarnish the President in people’s eyes going into next year’s election But by running things in a secretive way , and skewing the rules in such obvious ways (pending today’s vote), they undercut their ability to make it look like a fair process, and they cement opposition from the Republicans.

They need the proceedings to be taken seriously by the public if they are going to have any impact on the President, and they will never be seen that way in the manner it has been done and the way it will be voted on today. By being heavy and skewing the hearings (and doing so when the hearings now go public) so blatantly, they seriously undermine their own efforts to hurt the President or make him look bad. IF they truly believe he intended a quid pro quo or was guilty of that, they wouldn’t need to play games with select rules and witnesses to prove that. They know they are never going to be able to make a definitive case to the public, hence the need to tinker with rules to simply try to leave that impression.

Luckily, the Senate will be even more ready to discard this trash once it arrives, because the House isn’t even pretending to do this in a fair manner. I look forward to seeing all of the House’s efforts being crumpled up and tossed in a waste basket in a few weeks.

Oh and by the way, are any of these guys planning on funding the government in the next few weeks?
 
Last edited:
I don’t understand why the Dems are being so one-sided and on the surface unfair about the rules - it hurts them publicly. They know that the Senate was unlikely to remove the President, which is why this entire charade was simply being done to tarnish the President in people’s eyes going into next year’s election
I concur in part and dissent in part.

Yes, the Democrats are being one-sided in their rule making and it could be seen as unfair. They need to be aware that they really do have a possibility to impeach and convict the President, so, as I’ve said before, they need to be totally above board on all things, and remove any Republican process objections. They just can’t let the Republicans throw metal shavings in the gears and cause everything to come to a grinding halt.

My dissent is that this is not a charade. The President has been acting very unPresidential and abusing his power. People can not be silent, even if a Republican Senate won’t convict.
Luckily, the Senate will be even more ready to discard this trash once it arrives, because the House isn’t even pretending to do this in a fair manner. I look forward to seeing all of the House’s efforts being crumpled up and tossed in a waste basket in a few weeks.
How the articles were arrived at does not matter, really. If there is evidence of impeachable acts, there is evidence of impeachable acts and the Republicans in the Senate need to put country over party.

If the evidence isn’t there, acquit.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top