Permabanned
So the whole thing depends on if the GOP get away with suppressing evidence/witnesses.
Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
Who are those? I mean the ones with evidence and not hear say.
Again NO.
"Bolton said he submitted a hard copy draft of his manuscript to the NSC several weeks ago for "pre-publication review," but insisted he had not shared it with anyone else."
As said. It has to pass through the NSC. The same happens to all gov people bringing out books.
https://www.scribd.com/document/444380215/Bolton-letter Boltons lawyer
Vindman (present on the call), Hill (confirmed prior meetings to the call that Trump wanted Burisma/Biden investigated from Sondland), Sondland (took directions from Trump), Volker (one of the three amigos who also corroborated the need for the investigations and a WH visit for Zelensky) and Yovanovitch to name but a few.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,699
Not forgetting all those who aren't allowed to testify.
It's as though crime is a fantasy, may as well demolish all those prisons and let everyone out.
Soldato
Oh you mean Dr Hill that thought that Vindman was not right for the job and was to political?
What most are saying is 3rd\4th hand hear say.
Caporegime
It's funny that Trump insists he's innocent, but doesn't want any witnesses called in the impeachment trial and still refuses to release the transcript of the phone call.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 28,884
Trump: "I'm completely innocent - The transcripts and witnesses will vindicate me."
Democrats - "OK - Can we read the full transcripts"
Trump: "No"
Democrats "Well can we hear from the witnesses who will vindicate you?
Trump: No
Hmmm
Democrats - "OK - Can we read the full transcripts"
Trump: "No"
Democrats "Well can we hear from the witnesses who will vindicate you?
Trump: No
Hmmm
Vindman was on the call. That's first hand. Sondland was instructed by Trump (including a call other witnesses heard). That's first hand.
So you started with saying it's hearsay/no one has evidence. Only address one of four presented to you and then revert back to saying 'most are 3rd/4th hand'....
Do you think all of these people are lying? The man who donated $1m to Trump and personal appointee and the career professionals or the president who is a pathological liar (>15,000 misleading statements in a little over 3 years). I won't hold my breath.
Last edited:
What spying? what propaganda channel did you get that conspiracy from... Full on TDS here.
Who are you talking about and where is house evidence to back it up? you really are just spewing CT's now.
Where is that in the house's articles of impeachment?
Ukraine didn't know. The newly elected president of Ukraine is record as saying so.
Last edited:
Just like the 'empty of any evidence' prosecution then...
There was never any obstruction. The processes and separation of powers were used.
Permabanned
LOL, you have been re-programmed well by CNN/MSNBC as that's all they are saying now.
The sham of an impeachment is completely partisan and the dems have have no evidence.
Permabanned
you won't see it as @Pottsey made it up. It's total TDS BS.
100% true but the anti-trump TDS mob will say it's irrelevant. They're calling Zelensky/Ukraine liars despite the international media reporting they knew nothing of the Aid, let alone it being held until concerns over corruption in Ukraine.
Things that never happen:
Someone who has been charged with something and who is now in court is totally innocent and has documentation and multiple fact witnesses that could exonerate him. However they refuse to release the documentation or let the people who could exonerate them testify.
Someone who has been charged with something and who is now in court is totally innocent and has documentation and multiple fact witnesses that could exonerate him. However they refuse to release the documentation or let the people who could exonerate them testify.
Correct.
Permabanned
Wasn't spying brought up by Trusty to deflect from corrupt Donalds impeachment?
- Status