Jump to content

ROMAD1

POTUS Impeachment Watch

Recommended Posts


15 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Here are a couple of your “respectful” replies to people:

 

 

 

I don't really think there's enough bandwith on this board to re-post all the derrogatory comments directed at me just in the last month. They make the comments you just referenced of mine look benign (which they are). If you'd like me to find some of the best examples of how I've been addressed -racist, hooker, not fit to breath the same air (that came from a fellow moderator, by the way), moron, etc.,  I can certainly go re-quote those posts back to you. But I'd prefer to be respectful of your time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pfife said:

I'll let you sort out your arguments because you said just this morning we'd find it in the transcript but now you say we won't.   

And don't worry, I haven't forgotten that you also spent the morning arguing there was no quid pro quo, only to have the cheaph of staph tell the entire world that there was, and they do it all the time.   That's still really hilarious.

Good day on here for you, oh-fer

 

Something tells me he may not be chief of staff for long....

That said, the testimony to the House this morning was clear, the transcript is clear and Ukraine's government has been clear. There was no quid pro quo. Now, if what the US was doing was encouraging them to live up to their requirements under the joint treaty with respect to criminal investigations, that is quite different. In that sense, there could have been a cause and effect- you violate the treaty and we might hold up your aid. That is of course much different than demanding dirt on a political opponent in exchange for aid. Biden is actually on video confirming that he did just that with respect to getting the prosecutor fired. So if you'd like to see what a real quid pro quo looks like, you can review that Biden interview.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Something tells me he may not be chief of staff for long....

That said, the testimony to the House this morning was clear, the transcript is clear and Ukraine's government has been clear. There was no quid pro quo. Now, if what the US was doing was encouraging them to live up to their requirements under the joint treaty with respect to criminal investigations, that is quite different. In that sense, there could have been a cause and effect- you violate the treaty and we might hold up your aid. That is of course much different than demanding dirt on a political opponent in exchange for aid. Biden is actually on video confirming that he did just that with respect to getting the prosecutor fired. So if you'd like to see what a real quid pro quo looks like, you can review that Biden interview.

Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo, sorry chief.  In fact, he said they do it all the time.   The transcript clearly  shows solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.  It does not show a discussion of rooting out corruption,as the word corruption doesn't even appear once in the transcript.

Also, Obama still wasn't president in 2008.

Sorry your lies are falling apart.  I'm sure you'll find some fresh new ones under the qanon hashtag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Always the victim. Just like your god.

No, I'm not a victim- never claimed to be. You referenced benign comments I made as being offensive, so I referenced offensive comments made about me by others and compared them to my own.

Equal treatment is all I'm looking for. I think it's only fair that if you're going to sporadically pop up every few months to crack the ruler on me, you'll publicly call out the others in the same manner. That only seems fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pfife said:

Mulvaney said there was a quid pro quo, sorry chief.  The transcript shows solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.  It does not show a discussion of rooting out corruption,as the word corruption doesn't even appear once in the transcript.

Facts are a tough one for you today chief.   

The people actually involved with Ukraine and who have been put under oath, including Volker- have said they were never asked to do anything improper and that they have no knowledge of any quid pro quo. 

This is kinda like the russia thing for you guys....lots of ah ha moments, but still a nothing burger at the end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

The people actually involved with Ukraine and who have been put under oath, including Volker- have said they were never asked to do anything improper and that they have no knowledge of any quid pro quo. 

This is kinda like the russia thing for you guys....lots of ah ha moments, but still a nothing burger at the end. 

Link to Volker testimony where he said this?

Mulvaney said there was quid pro quo.  

Transcript clearly showed solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pfife said:

Link to Volker testimony where he said this?

Mulvaney said there was quid pro quo.  

Transcript clearly showed solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/impeachment-inquiry-kurt-volker-ex-ukraine-envoy-testified-he-was-never-asked-to-do-anything-he-thought-was-wrong/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ROMAD1 said:

KINDA LIKE THE RUSSIA THING!!!!!!

it is the Russia thing. Duh hoy

I have never said the democrats had a complicated playbook. Their MO is to accuse the other side of what they do. Which is why they followed Trump to Ukraine when russia didn't work. Otherwise they would have impeached him over russia. When this doesn't work, they will move on to something else. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stanpapi said:

I have never said the democrats had a complicated playbook. Their MO is to accuse the other side of what they do. Which is why they followed Trump to Ukraine when russia didn't work. Otherwise they would have impeached him over russia. When this doesn't work, they will move on to something else. 

Projection of “projection”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tigerbomb13 said:

Projection of “projection”

Keep in mind that the democrats bought a dossier on Trump. They spied on Trump. They got a ukrainian prosecutor fired for getting too close to one of their family members. Then they threw the exact same nonsense back at Trump. Why? Because they know he's interested in ending their pay for play games. 

Incidentally, it's also not hard to fathom that democrats aren't exactly to be taken at face value when they put up more of a stink about Turkey and Syria's border issues than protecting the US border. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Do you have a link to the Volker testimony?  This is anonymous sourcing which you used to be against.  

Mulvaney said there was quid pro quo.  

Transcript clearly showed solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.

Obama wasn't president in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Keep in mind that the democrats bought a dossier on Trump. They spied on Trump. They got a ukrainian prosecutor fired for getting too close to one of their family members. Then they threw the exact same nonsense back at Trump. Why? Because they know he's interested in ending their pay for play games. 

Incidentally, it's also not hard to fathom that democrats aren't exactly to be taken at face value when they put up more of a stink about Turkey and Syria's border issues than protecting the US border. 

They did none of that.  Literally none. Stop lying.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pfife said:

Do you have a link to the Volker testimony?  This is anonymous sourcing which you used to be against.  

Mulvaney said there was quid pro quo.  

Transcript clearly showed solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.

Obama wasn't president in 2008.

This is better sourcing than the tweets you usually use. Volker has the opportunity to refute what CBS published. He has not done so. And it would not be inconsistent with sondland's testimony today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, stanpapi said:

This is better sourcing than the tweets you usually use. Volker has the opportunity to refute what CBS published. He has not done so. And it would not be inconsistent with sondland's testimony today.  

Do you have a link to the Volker testimony?  This is anonymous sourcing which you used to be against.  

Mulvaney said there was quid pro quo.  

Transcript clearly showed solicitation of foreign election help, which is a crime.

Obama wasn't president in 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Motown Sports Blog



×
×
  • Create New...