REMINDER: THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to monitor the Forums. However, THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to review any materials submitted to or posted on the Forums, and remove, delete, redact or otherwise modify such materials, in its sole discretion and for any reason whatsoever, at any time and from time to time, without notice or further obligation to you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. has no obligation to display or post any materials provided by you. THE ARENA PLATFORM, INC. reserves the right to disclose, at any time and from time to time, any information or materials that we deem necessary or appropriate to satisfy any applicable law, regulation, contract obligation, legal or dispute process or government request. Click on the following hyperlinks to further read the applicable Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Are you saying that testimony was not given during the impeachment hearing?Isn't that the same ANONYMOUS "angry staffer" "SOURCE" we heard from during Mueller?
Isn't that the same ANONYMOUS "angry staffer" "SOURCE" we heard from during Mueller?
So why did you feel the need to post it again? Dummy.but it's also the same transcript that's posted all over the entire internet, dummy.
5/7 thread title !! )So why did you feel the need to post it again?
not going to change GOPTard's mind
Yes. and I see no real impeachable offenses in there. Lots of hand-wringing, hear-say and interpretation of events.
This. The Republicans can never turn on Trump because it would be an admission of their lack of judgement the last 3+ years. Not going to happen. More likely they will go with the "Quid pro quo? Everybody does it" argument.not going to change GOPTard's mind
Mainly because we haven't heard any cross examination of his testimony?Mainly because Surfdog has no reading comprehension skills.
least it will be fun hanging the scarlet letter on GOPTards post Trump and tell them every time they try to bring up ethics & morality to STFUThis. The Republicans can never turn on Trump because it would be an admission of their lack of judgement the last 3+ years. Not going to happen. More likely they will go with the "Quid pro quo? Everybody does it" argument.
Which subreddit did you copy that from?Mainly because we haven't heard any cross examination of his testimony?
There's the minor detail that this aid money (actually an already approved purchase) was going to Ukraine no matter what happened in this phone call. It's going to be a matter if it was delayed somewhat due to other factors, or not. They were getting this aid money no matter what. This is NOT a pay for play, or no deal, like deal the Bidens were involved in with the previous Ukraine government.
The quid pro quo issue is going to be kind of tough to prove if the aid money that was already approved on a purchase of Javelin missiles was a dangling carrot for supposed help on investigating Hunter Biden's 2015-2016 activity and Joe's potential relevance to it.
The linkage of Hunter's/Joe past activity to interfering with present/future campaigning is going to be interesting in a court setting. Do candidates get a pass on recent past potential criminal activity, just because they're now running for office? Wouldn't the public and fed guv want to know past potential shady activity of someone they might be voting for in the future?
That's going to be up to a judiciary committee and judges to decide.
This is going to get juicy if it comes down to all this. I say bring it on already. Trump or Biden or both could go down in all this.
We need light shed on it all.
Isn't that the same ANONYMOUS "angry staffer" "SOURCE" we heard from during Mueller?
Original thought pieced from actual facts reported.Which subreddit did you copy that from?
Holy irony batmanOriginal thought pieced from actual facts reported.
You should try it sometime.
Free yourself from the twitterverse.
You don't see me posting every little crumb of barf and spittle from the twitterverse.Holy irony batman