Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Chung Tran · 11-21-2019, 01:05 PM

SC got you guys again. he asks a direct question, and every one of you run, change the subject. you don't even realize it, I think, you are so used to avoid and re-direct.

lustylad · 11-21-2019, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

SC got you guys again. he asks a direct question, and every one of you run, change the subject. you don't even realize it, I think, you are so used to avoid and re-direct.

Huh? Nobody deflected. Read the replies again. They're all direct and spot-on and they refute the OP's silly premises that there was any proven or explicit quid pro quo or that Sondland went "full John Dean".

Chung Tran · 11-21-2019, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Why would he use those words the EXACT SAME DAY he found out about the whistleblower...

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

this is the question you guys are running from!

oeb11 · 11-21-2019, 02:00 PM

OMG - then that is completely different and Trump is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors"
Call the headsman to decapitate Trump on the DPST block!!!!
Obviously!! Immediately!!!
Install H... in the office which was stolen from her and the DPST's!!!
Hysterical Hypocritical.

lustylad · 11-21-2019, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

The fact he used the words I want no quid pro quo means he was guilty. Why would he use those words the EXACT SAME DAY he found out about the whistleblower...

Hahahahahahahahahahaha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

this is the question you guys are running from!

Not running at all. Assuming it's true, it doesn't prove guilt. So let's see... Trump finds out some dim-retard partisan hack CIA dipshit accused him of wrongdoing, he asks what the fuck it was about, and one of his advisers says the dim-retard dickblower is alleging some kind of "quid pro quo". Then Trump is on the phone with Sondland later that day and he clarifies there is no quid pro quo. Twist and spin all you want, that isn't proof of guilt. If anything, it's proof of innocence.

Think about it. By your logic, a simple denial is proof of guilt. I guess that passes as logic in a kangeroo court.

bambino · 11-21-2019, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

SC got you guys again. he asks a direct question, and every one of you run, change the subject. you don't even realize it, I think, you are so used to avoid and re-direct.

SC didn’t get anyone. She’s a troll like you.

Levianon17 · 11-21-2019, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

this is the question you guys are running from!

That question is irrelevant, and there is no credible Whistleblower. All witnesses so far are flip flopping flops, lol.

Jaxson66 · 11-21-2019, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

notice how often he looked down.
Script in front of him.

That’s because he was reading his opening statement.

Was it your first viewing of a congressional hearing, that comment makes you appear that way

Jaxson66 · 11-21-2019, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Levianon17

That question is irrelevant, and there is no credible Whistleblower. All witnesses so far are flip flopping flops, lol.

Call Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry, to testify what’s the Freedom caucus afraid of, for that matter what’s trump afraid of?

Levianon17 · 11-21-2019, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Call Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry, to testify what’s the Freedom caucus afraid of, for that matter what’s trump afraid of?

Trump doesn't have to be afraid of anything. The Democrats have the burden of proof. So far they haven't proven shit. So far all witnesses have testified to what they heard or think they heard from others, speculation and mere opinions. None of that is proof. Besides the worse that can happen to Trump is he gets impeached. I doubt he'll be removed from office and he most certainly won't be convicted. In the event a Democrat wins the election in 2020 he or she better be unfuckingbelievable or they will prove to the whole world that Democrats are truly the biggest bunch of idiots in world politics.

oeb11 · 11-21-2019, 04:54 PM

I think any sensible DPST (?oxymoron?) is terrified of forwarding an impeachment case to the Senate
Where all of Schiff and Nadlers sleight of hand and slanted partisan committee findings will be exposed to open careful examination and rules of evidence and proof.

The malfeasance Schiff is foisting upon America won't stand up to open non-partisan hearings

A Senate trial may well have obstruction of justice charges for the DPST leaders of the kangaroo court Schiff and Pelosi are leading.

I hope so.

Their behavior, as in the Kavanaugh hearings, is despicable.
I am not a fan of Trump and his persona. But what he does and espouses policy for America works far better for me than any Free-for All Socialist the DPST's are shit-slinging at America on their ridiculous excuse for nomination debates.

Redhot1960 · 11-21-2019, 05:23 PM

lustylad · 11-21-2019, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaxson66

Call Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, and Perry, to testify what’s the Freedom caucus afraid of, for that matter what’s trump afraid of?

Call Hunter Biden, Devon Archer, Nellie Ohr, Alexandra Chalupa, and Eric Ciaramella to testify! What's Shifty Schiff afraid of? For that matter, what are the dim-retards afraid of?

HoeHummer · 11-21-2019, 10:08 PM

Jeeze Louise! I think you pussies would want to put Trumputin on the stand as well, eh? One simple question and the jungle begins howling. Can you say, “laughing stock?”

Levianon17 · 11-21-2019, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Jeeze Louise! I think you pussies would want to put Trumputin on the stand as well, eh? One simple question and the jungle begins howling. Can you say, “laughing stock?”

Trump would be foolish to go before this hearing. When it gets to the Senate he won't mind testifying, that's where it really counts anyway.