• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats release first transcripts from impeachment probe

This does not mean anything and If you actually think that this is acceptable, then what would stop the republicans doing the same exact thing to a democratic president? Because the democrats are the big mouth and they also have the emotional media as the puppet. I wouldn’t even touch this because this was conducted behind closed doors. I would request an investigation into the whistleblower and, I would start questioning if Adam Schiff is the whistle blower because we are not allowed to know the witness. I honestly think that you people are a joke because all of a sudden you all about the whistle blower. So we should hear Edward Snowden then because you are saying that whistleblowers has a right to be heard. Oh yeah, it must to be an offended democrat who is against the president. Does this coward qualify for the protection? My problem is we have to believe in this coward who doesn’t have any dignity to come forward and actually testify before intelligence community. Honestly, I don’t care and, I bet you that this person is reading off of index cards. It’s funny that Ford didn’t want to testify, but, everyone drags her to the podium and made her to give the testimony. Where the blink was her protection?
 
Cardinal said:
I've already encountered the first trump supporter bitching and moaning about the deposition: "It's too much reading."

Seriously. I didn't make that up.
Click to expand...

Trump said he loves the poorly educated.
 
TheRepublican said:
This does not mean anything and If you actually think that this is acceptable, then what would stop the republicans doing the same exact thing to a democratic president? Because the democrats are the big mouth and they also have the emotional media as the puppet. I wouldn’t even touch this because this was conducted behind closed doors. I would request an investigation into the whistleblower and, I would start questioning if Adam Schiff is the whistle blower because we are not allowed to know the witness. I honestly think that you people are a joke because all of a sudden you all about the whistle blower. So we should hear Edward Snowden then because you are saying that whistleblowers has a right to be heard. Oh yeah, it must to be an offended democrat who is against the president. Does this coward qualify for the protection? My problem is we have to believe in this coward who doesn’t have any dignity to come forward and actually testify before intelligence community. Honestly, I don’t care and, I bet you that this person is reading off of index cards. It’s funny that Ford didn’t want to testify, but, everyone drags her to the podium and made her to give the testimony. Where the blink was her protection?
Click to expand...

Actually, the Republicans have already done something very similar except it was over a BJ and a lie under oath....I felt that was impeachable, bet you did too....and this is far worse, so ya damn right they should impeach his butt and throw his sorry arse in jail
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Apparently the only bad thing to the gop is being a liberal.
Click to expand...

Actually the only bad thing to the GOP is anything not with an (R) behind it. They give not two ****s about any policy. Just sheeping after their messiah and whatever policy he decides to tweet that day. Then they will modify themselves to adapt to whatever it is he said.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That depends on how one describes US policy changes which one might call an Obama deal with Russia (that fexibility after the election?) or simply happened to "accidentally" please Russia but were allegedly made for other reasons.

U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed - The New York Times
Click to expand...

I was just reading about that. The US and Russia couldn't come to agreement on US European long range missile defense systems in Poland...so the START agreement wasn't renewed after it expired in 2013.


U.S.–Russia Relations in the Second Obama Administration


That said, I don't see how this is in anyway similar to Ukrainegate because unlike Trump, Obama didn't try to bribe or extort the Russians for his own personal political gain.
 
SLC said:
That is debatable but what isn’t debatable is she was not doing what the Trump administration, her boss, told her to do and she got fired. Big deal.
Click to expand...

What did Trump tell her to do?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That depends on how one describes US policy changes which one might call an Obama deal with Russia (that fexibility after the election?) or simply happened to "accidentally" please Russia but were allegedly made for other reasons.

U.S. Cancels Part of Missile Defense That Russia Opposed - The New York Times
Click to expand...

At a quick glance it makes sense. Russia opposed the missile defense system, saying it was major obstacle for limiting nukes. If Russia limits nukes, then there is less need for a missile defense system.

The United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues.

And I don't see Obama benefiting personally from this, whereas Trump was intending to benefit personally hugely, so this is very much apples and oranges. At least based on the article you provided. What are the other alleged reasons you speak of? What evidence is there to support this reasoning?
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
What did Trump tell her to do?
Click to expand...

Apparently she asked Sondland what to do, he told her to "go big or go home", that she was supposed to be a cheerleader for Trump on twitter. Imagine, major staffing decisions are being made based on who can be the biggest Trump sycophant.

Using that as the basis for staffing decisions usually works out really well. Jesus, what a clown show, you guys are likely going to be so screwed by the time Trump leaves office, when you probably find out all sorts of new **** ups by Trump, the **** up king himself.
 
Last edited:
Moot said:
I was just reading about that. The US and Russia couldn't come to agreement on US European long range missile defense systems in Poland...so the START agreement wasn't renewed after it expired in 2013.


U.S.–Russia Relations in the Second Obama Administration


That said, I don't see how this is in anyway similar to Ukrainegate because unlike Trump, Obama didn't try to bribe or extort the Russians for his own personal political gain.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't see the connection either. Based on the info he provided, it's apples and oranges.
 
At least one honest news media puke...

Today, we got the Yovanovitch and McKinley transcripts. Tomorrow, we'll get the ones for Volker and Sondland. House Democrats are choreographing the releases so that the testimonies, when amplified by media reports, weave together the case against Trump, acc. to sources familiar.

Geoff Bennett on Twitter: "Today, we got the Yovanovitch and McKinley transcripts. Tomorrow, we'll get the ones for Volker and Sondland. House Democrats are choreographing the releases so that the testimonies, when amplified by media reports, weave together the case against Trump, acc. to sources familiar."​

Let's see...

Change the House rules. Check.

Call in pre-selected individuals. Check.

Leak selected bits and pieces from closed hearings. (against the law) Check.

Change the rules again. Check.

Release transcripts in carefully pre-arranged order. Check.

Refuse to abide by the House rules. Check.

Release talking points for the media. Check.

Media admits this is all pre-arranged to "weave together the case against Trump". OOPS!!​
 
poweRob said:
Post# 11:



Post# 41:



Dude is so predictable.
Click to expand...

Trump shoots people dead on Fifth Avenue.
apdst: "So, it's a big nothingburger".
 
pamak said:
No, he was not by the FBI!

The dossier was used to investigate Trump associates and even this investigation was not used by the administration for political purposes which is the reason why you learned about the dossier AFTER THE ELECTION!

Please do your own research

There is nothing that shows the FBI lied to FISA judges
Click to expand...

The people in the FBI warned that the dossier was junk.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
 
RetiredUSN said:
The people in the FBI warned that the dossier was junk.

Keep drinking the Kool Aid.
Click to expand...

This isn’t a characterization the FBI has ever used in public or court documents when describing the dossier. Further, given the publicly available facts known about the dossier and the things referenced in it it’s not a characterization the FBI would use. So where are you getting this idea that people in the FBI warned that the dossier was “junk”, as you put it.
 
CaughtInThe said:
You don't consider an American president using the power of his office and our tax money to bribe another country into digging up dirt on a US political opponent to even be wrong.

That says more about you than this entire investigation says about Trump.

Thanks for dropping the mask.
Click to expand...

You’ve hit on an important reality.

Trump’s recklessness and disloyalty are givens now, to his fan base.

Trump and the right wing media have normalized influence peddling, bribery, collusion with foreign government, and reckless jingoism to the point where the talk radio right thinks this is normal and acceptable.

Of course, Trump keeps insisting that because he did it, it isn’t illegal.

And the lemming keep cheering for it.
 
W_Heisenberg said:
This isn’t a characterization the FBI has ever used in public or court documents when describing the dossier. Further, given the publicly available facts known about the dossier and the things referenced in it it’s not a characterization the FBI would use. So where are you getting this idea that people in the FBI warned that the dossier was “junk”, as you put it.
Click to expand...

He made it up.

This is a new Trumpster theme.

Repeat every lie they were ever told, and do it in little elementary school sentences.

This derails the thread and get people relitigating parts of the Trump/Russia scandal that we‘be been over before.

That way, Trumpsters don’t have to address the growing mountain of evidence of their hero’s guilt.
 
Mycroft said:
At least one honest news media puke...

Today, we got the Yovanovitch and McKinley transcripts. Tomorrow, we'll get the ones for Volker and Sondland. House Democrats are choreographing the releases so that the testimonies, when amplified by media reports, weave together the case against Trump, acc. to sources familiar.


“Change the House rules. Check.”

The House rules were adopted by Boehner in 2016.

“Call in pre-selected individuals. Check.”

That’s normal

“Leak selected bits and pieces from closed hearings. (against the law) Check.”

You keep making this claim. You’ve been challenged repeatedly to document it. You just keep repeating yourself, with no evidence to support your claim at all.

“Cange the rules again. Check.”

Document that one!

“Release transcripts in carefully pre-arranged order. Check.”

Nothing unusual there, either. The GOP went even further in the Benghazi hearings. Often making up whole false narratives about upcoming testimony from a witness they were promoting.

“Refuse to abide by the House rules. Check.”

Document that one.

“Release talking points for the media. Check.”

Also standard practice. Here again, the GOP went steps further during Benghazi. They had the talking points out before the witness testified. Often, they would plant fake stories in right wing media suggesting that their witness was being somehow intimidated. None of these advance claims were true. They were designed for fundraising and audience buiding.

“Media admits this is all pre-arranged to "weave together the case against Trump"

So?​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TomFitz said:
You’ve hit on an important reality.

Trump’s recklessness and disloyalty are givens now, to his fan base.

Trump and the right wing media have normalized influence peddling, bribery, collusion with foreign government, and reckless jingoism to the point where the talk radio right thinks this is normal and acceptable.

Of course, Trump keeps insisting that because he did it, it isn’t illegal.

And the lemming keep cheering for it.
Click to expand...

The great democrat hope: 'If we can only keep digging and not give up after years of failure, Trump will eventually be found to have done something bad we can finally use to get rid of him before he crushes us in the 2020 election.'
 
Schiff's transcripts are pointless because the media can make up and release whatever they want. What IS relevant is the transcript of Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian president and shows NOTHING of what the Left is accusing Trump of, rendering the whistle-blower irrelevant. Especially when the whistle-blower went to Schiff first instead of the IG, making this a partisan act.

BTW, the media and the Left are running around acting like the whistle-blower is still unknown, which is simply untrue because he's already been unmasked. The guy's name is Eric Ciaramella. He worked for McMaster and Brennan, which also means he worked for Obama. This guy was planted inside of Trump's cabinet to act as a leaker (saboteur would be more accurate). His job was to find something (ANYTHING), then call one of Obama's acolytes so they can twist the and lie about a story that involved Trump. He never actually found anything, but was told about the Trump/Ukraine phone call. He wasn't given any details, but just that it involved Trump. He then told Schiff, and everyone knows the rest. What this guy did may have been illegal. Not so much making up a story, but the fact that if what Trump did was so bad he should have reported it to the IG, but he didn't. He went straight to someone else who's not a part of Trump's administration. So I'm curious to see how that plays out.

With Schiff, the guy is a habitual liar and partisan hack. The guy lied, IN A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING NO LESS, about what was in the Trump/Ukraine phone call transcript. He holds meetings in secret, away from the Republicans, on impeachment. He tried to twist what was in the Mueller report. He,himself, tried to get dirt on Trump by trying to contact foreign people that know Trump and Putin (which failed, but it didn't stop him from trying). I have no reason to believe that these transcripts that he had released is everything, legit, nor even relevant. The bottom line is Adam Schiff is not a good person, and if you believe what this man is telling you in this matter, you truly are brainwashed (Jeff Epstein didn't commit suicide).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom