What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

TRUMP TO INFINITY AND BEYOND HQ - The Great and Positive Place (5 Viewers)

lod001 said:
R's are all making sense while all the Ds have nothing and are up there simply blabbering.
Click to expand...
Yeah. That persecuted more than Jesus was very common sense...not sure you are watching then right thing man...Rs again have avoided actually talking about the charges and evidence and just complained

 
adonis said:
This is not true.  Testimony from those part of the house investigation is evidence.  To say there's no evidence is to be truly ill-informed about what constitutes evidence.

People, under oath, testifying about what the saw and heard, experts in their fields, folks enmeshed in what's going on...THIS IS EVIDENCE. 

It's as if folks have never understood how trials take place in every court room in every city in ever state every day in the USA.  

Just because you don't like what was said, doesn't make it disappear.

AND...the fact there wasn't MORE evidence is due to POTUS obstructing congress, which is an impeachable offense as well.

So you have evidence, and you have a situation where you'd have more evidence if Trump didn't obstruct congress.  The charges are easy to understand, and evidence is clearly there.
Click to expand...
There was no evidence of wrongdoing by Trump.   There were no fact witnesses.

 
Don't Noonan said:
This simply isn't true 
Click to expand...
You have no understanding of evidence then.

The transcript of the call was evidence, as was every testimony from witnesses attesting to wrongdoing.  
 

There was plenty of evidence of Trumps behavior.  And the fact that there wasn’t MORE evidence was due to Trump obstructing congress and preventing more evidence from coming forward.

it was both for his obstruction, and based on the evidence presented of his wrongdoing, that he was impeached today.

this is the simple truth.  I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t see that.  It’d be like you denying there are 50 states, or that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.  

 
adonis said:
You have no understanding of evidence then.

The transcript of the call was evidence, as was every testimony from witnesses attesting to wrongdoing.  
 

There was plenty of evidence of Trumps behavior.  And the fact that there wasn’t MORE evidence was due to Trump obstructing congress and preventing more evidence from coming forward.

it was both for his obstruction, and based on the evidence presented of his wrongdoing, that he was impeached today.

this is the simple truth.  I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t see that.  It’d be like you denying there are 50 states, or that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.  
Click to expand...
You are wrong if you believe there was evidence of wrongdoing, sorry.

 
adonis said:
You have no understanding of evidence then.

The transcript of the call was evidence, as was every testimony from witnesses attesting to wrongdoing.  
 

There was plenty of evidence of Trumps behavior.  And the fact that there wasn’t MORE evidence was due to Trump obstructing congress and preventing more evidence from coming forward.

it was both for his obstruction, and based on the evidence presented of his wrongdoing, that he was impeached today.

this is the simple truth.  I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t see that.  It’d be like you denying there are 50 states, or that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.  
Click to expand...
Your post is inaccurate and the lame attempt at insults is not what this thread is about, please take that to the conspiracy threads. TIA. 

 
adonis said:
You have no understanding of evidence then.

The transcript of the call was evidence, as was every testimony from witnesses attesting to wrongdoing.  
 

There was plenty of evidence of Trumps behavior.  And the fact that there wasn’t MORE evidence was due to Trump obstructing congress and preventing more evidence from coming forward.

it was both for his obstruction, and based on the evidence presented of his wrongdoing, that he was impeached today.

this is the simple truth.  I don’t know what to tell you if you can’t see that.  It’d be like you denying there are 50 states, or that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4.  
Click to expand...
Sorry it's you that has no understanding of evidence. The witnesses the Ds provided testified that they had no direct evidence, just conjecture. Meanwhile they all had an axe to grind over being left out of key decisions regarding Ukraine which led all of them to come off very bitter. 

But the key here is there was not one piece of evidence. This is not up for debate. 

 
RBM said:
Sorry it's you that has no understanding of evidence. The witnesses the Ds provided testified that they had no direct evidence, just conjecture. Meanwhile they all had an axe to grind over being left out of key decisions regarding Ukraine which led all of them to come off very bitter. 

But the key here is there was not one piece of evidence. This is not up for debate. 
Click to expand...
Vindman, who heard the call first hand (and other conversations), testified and his testimony is evidence.  Have you not been paying attention to this investigation at all?  Any of you?

 
For a Democrat wet dream we have been hearing about would happen even before Trump was elected, these people sure seem to be acting scared. CNN crying about Trumps rising approval and decline in public impeachment support, Chuck Todd freaking out about this not feeling “remarkable” and the drive by Democrats lashing out in here. 

 
adonis said:
Vindman, who heard the call first hand (and other conversations), testified and his testimony is evidence.  Have you not been paying attention to this investigation at all?  Any of you?
Click to expand...
Vindman testified the transcript released by the white house is correct.  He also testified he has no knowledge of quid quo pro, bribery, or any crimes committed by Trump.  He is also likely the leaker who went crying to the whistleblower.

 
What they hell is going on in here?  Some of these guys feel the need to spike the football before it ever gets to trial?   :lmao:

It's like Raiders fans celebrating a TD when they are behind by 40.  

 
tonydead said:
What they hell is going on in here?  Some of these guys feel the need to spike the football before it ever gets to trial?   :lmao:

It's like Raiders fans celebrating a TD when they are behind by 40.  
Click to expand...
Now is their only chance as the charade is all downhill from here. 

 
Don't Noonan said:
Vindman testified the transcript released by the white house is correct.  He also testified he has no knowledge of quid quo pro, bribery, or any crimes committed by Trump.  He is also likely the leaker who went crying to the whistleblower.
Click to expand...
Here is Vindman's testimony.

Regarding the whistleblower.  He testified that he doesn't know who it is, and wouldn't speculate about who it is.  If you're comfortable calling the purple heart, war veteran a liar, by all means continue suggesting he leaked:

I want the committee to know I am not the whistleblower who brought this issue to the CIA and the committee's attention. I do not know who the whistleblower is, and I would not feel comfortable to speculate as to the identity of the whistleblower.
Click to expand...
Regarding knowledge of quid pro quo, he testified that he took president Trump's request for a favor as a demand, in return for what the Ukrainians wanted.  The fact that there was a demand in return for Ukraine getting what they wanted, was essentially quid pro quo, and Vindman testified to this, which is evidence of Trump demanding an investigation into his political rivals in return for Ukraine getting meetings and aid.  This is all evidence in the public record.

Vindman was concerned by the call and went and reported it through the chain of command.  From the moment he heard Trump make the call, he was concerned that it was improper, and that it put our national security at risk.  This was reflected by all other folks who provided evidence via their testimony about what they saw and heard in their positions.

Read the testimony.  He provides plenty of details, first hand details, about improper activities by Trump.  It's not up to him to call them crimes, he's just there providing facts and data - it's up to congress to put criminal or legal labels on the behavior.

Also, he contested that the transcript released by the white house was complete.  He said, in his testimony, that they left things out, edits he had made.  Specifically about Biden.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please save us from the 3.5% unemployment rate and all time record market highs.  I actually get the strategy, you can't run against Trump's economic performance. 

 
adonis said:
Vindman, who heard the call first hand (and other conversations), testified and his testimony is evidence.  Have you not been paying attention to this investigation at all?  Any of you?
Click to expand...
Vindman was basically confirmed as the weasel that ran to Ciaramella during that testimony. Unfortunately for all of them Trump released the transcript and the plot was exposed. 

 
Shula-holic said:
Please save us from the 3.5% unemployment rate and all time record market highs.  I actually get the strategy, you can't run against Trump's economic performance. 
Click to expand...
The economic performance has been good.  It's his criminal activities that are the problem.

 
RBM said:
Vindman was basically confirmed as the weasel that ran to Ciaramella during that testimony. Unfortunately for all of them Trump released the transcript and the plot was exposed. 
Click to expand...
Point to a place in the testimony where this was confirmed, or are you just baselessly slandering a purple heart war veteran because he had the temerity to stand up to Trump?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
adonis said:
Here is Vindman's testimony.

Regarding the whistleblower.  He testified that he doesn't know who it is, and wouldn't speculate about who it is.  If you're comfortable calling the purple heart, war veteran a liar, by all means continue suggesting he leaked:

Regarding knowledge of quid pro quo, he testified that he took president Trump's request for a favor as a demand, in return for what the Ukrainians wanted.  The fact that there was a demand in return for Ukraine getting what they wanted, was essentially quid pro quo, and Vindman testified to this, which is evidence of Trump demanding an investigation into his political rivals in return for Ukraine getting meetings and aid.  This is all evidence in the public record.

Vindman was concerned by the call and went and reported it through the chain of command.  From the moment he heard Trump make the call, he was concerned that it was improper, and that it put our national security at risk.  This was reflected by all other folks who provided evidence via their testimony about what they saw and heard in their positions.

Read the testimony.  He provides plenty of details, first hand details, about improper activities by Trump.  It's not up to him to call them crimes, he's just there providing facts and data - it's up to congress to put criminal or legal labels on the behavior.
Click to expand...
You are in the wrong thread to be spilling this stuff.  Folks paying attention know Vindman did nothing to show Trump committed an impeachable offense.  His opinion of the call means no more than Sho Nuffs.  He clearly hates Trump and yes I believe he lied and leaked his flawed opinion to the whistleblower.

 
sho nuff said:
Sure you can...because the economy os more than just the stock market.  
Click to expand...
You're right, it is.  You want to gloss over 3.5% unemployment too though?  Just so you understand, you've never taken a breath when unemployment was lower unless you are already a member of AARP. 

EDIT, I must correct this. Unemployment did touch 3.5% in Dec. 1969.  Prior to that you have to go back to the 50's.  No need to exaggerate when the truth is so good.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
You are in the wrong thread to be spilling this stuff.  Folks paying attention know Vindman did nothing to show Trump committed an impeachable offense.  His opinion of the call means no more than Sho Nuffs.  He clearly hates Trump and yes I believe he lied and leaked his flawed opinion to the whistleblower.
Click to expand...
Again, folks are saying there's no evidence of wrongdoing.  I'm pointing to evidence of wrongdoing, from folks who heard it first hand.  

I can't help it when folks refuse to acknowledge reality...I'll do my best to point to reality and hope that folks come around.  You can acknowledge it as evidence, and say it's just not convincing, but you can't deny that the evidence even exists.

 
GoBirds said:
Anyone surprised the same 10-12 posters that spend all day and night in here getting behind every conspiracy to date are pushing this partisan story and dropping insults if you don’t buy it? This behavior is just sad and so so old. 

Props to Tulsi for not playing along.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/tulsi-gabbard-votes-present-trump-impeachment-articles.amp
Click to expand...
Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard declined to vote in favor of two articles of impeachment against President Trump after a contentious debate Wednesday, choosing to vote "present" instead.

The House voted 230 to 197 to impeach Trump for abuse of power, mostly along party lines. Lawmakers also voted to impeach the president on a second article, obstruction of Congress, in a 229-198 vote.

Gabbard, a 2020 presidential hopeful, released a lengthy statement following the votes.

"Throughout my life, whether through serving in the military or in Congress, I’ve always worked to do what is in the best interests of our country. Not what’s best for me politically or what’s best for my political part," Gabbard said. "After doing my due diligence in reviewing the 658-page impeachment report, I came to the conclusion that I could not in good conscience vote either yes or no."

 

She said she believes Trump is guilty of wrongdoing but that she could not vote in favor of impeachment, saying the process must not be a "culmination of a partisan process."

"When I cast my vote in support of the impeachment inquiry nearly three months ago, I said that in order to maintain the integrity of this solemn undertaking, it must not be a partisan endeavor," Gabbard said. "Tragically, that’s what it has been. "


This is the type of leader that we need as President.   Tragically, the Dems don't understand that this type of person is the only type of person that could beat Trump in 2020.

 
adonis said:
Point to a place in the testimony where this was confirmed, or are you just baselessly slandering a purple heart war veteran because he had the temerity to stand up to Trump?
Click to expand...
I will gladly slander the weasel. See the Jordan questioning. He asks who he spoke to after the call. He names everyone except one person. Then cry face Schiff jumps in that they will not expose the whistleblower. Made it kind of obvious. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
GordonGekko
Revisiting The Young Turks 2016 Election Meltdown Over Trump's Stunning Victory (7/7/2022 9:35 PST)
Replies
16
Views
454
GordonGekko
GordonGekko

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top