Trumptards a Q?

YellowSnow

TurdBomber said:

YellowSnow said:

TurdBomber said:

YellowSnow said:

Tequilla said:

HHusky said:

creepycoug said:

Swaye said:

creepycoug said:

I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.

If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.

Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.

Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.

Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.

Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.

That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.

Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.

It may backfire on the Dems. I'm not arguing that point. It could. Realpolitik, and all that.

But you've agreed there's probably something there. To me, abuse of the most powerful office in the world and putting personal interests ahead of national interests are not trivial. Your response amounts to "boys will be boys". Are you saying impeachment should be explored only when public opinion already favors it?

1) Define what abuse of power is?

2) Having a buffer between yourself and those carrying things out isn’t exclusive to this sitting President ... it’s true for likely every sitting President and occurs in most every C-Suite in Corporate America ... the whole plausible deniability thing

3) If Biden wasn’t running for President and an investigation was launched would there be any uproar? It seems pretty clear to me that there is some smoke there. Are the Biden’s untouchable because Joe is in the race right now? Nobody seemingly is talking about this.

The reality is that the Dems don’t have a strong candidate and they know it. Everything they are doing is trying to discredit Trump compared to saying why their message is better.


The timing of all of this speaks volumes. We’re inside a year of the 2020 election ... easiest way to remove Trump is to beat him next November ... if you can

All they are doing is reminding a lot of people why they voted for Trump in 2016

A 37 year old mayor of some BFE Midwest college town is leading in the Iowa Dem Cockus polling . How fucktarded has the Democratic party these days? They are the folks that got Trump elected in the first place and are going to re-elect him again.

You don't think the U.S. is ready for a 37 year-old homo to be President?

Imagine the Nixonian specter of Hillary stomping around a hotel suite on Election night screaming at Bill "They elected a Fag before me? Fuck this country! Fuck these people! And Fuck You, Bill!"

I've vote for a 37 year old, gay for President if I thought they were the best person for the job of the choices available. TR was probably our best non-wartime President IMO and he was only 42. But TR's resume was a bit more accomplished than Mayor Pete's, although he does seem like a sharp guy.

I'm of course drawing from that actual recording of Nixon when speaking to Haldeman (I think it was) and said, "You know the last six Roman Emperors? All Fags." Laffed my arse off at that.

Bruh, no one here loves Nixon hot mics more that me. LBJ was great too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMfVnBmpMm8

SFGbob

And?