• 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!

[W:161]Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

lemmiwinx said:
Was she boohooing about getting fired? How dare Trump fire her ass he should be impeached!
Click to expand...

No, she was not. She conducted herself with dignity, decorum and restraint; qualities entirely foreign to the clueless bumbling idiot in the White House, masquerading as a 'president'.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

snakestretcher said:
No, she was not. She conducted herself with dignity, decorum and restraint; qualities entirely foreign to the clueless bumbling idiot in the White House, masquerading as a 'president'.
Click to expand...

Hell, even you could've "conducted [your]self with dignity, decorum and restraint" once you realized everyone questioning you was afraid to ask anything challenging.
I didn't know Pelosi gave Schiff the authority to canonize people too.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

bubbabgone said:
Hell, even you could've "conducted [your]self with dignity, decorum and restraint" once you realized everyone questioning you was afraid to ask anything challenging.
I didn't know Pelosi gave Schiff the authority to canonize people too.
Click to expand...

I believe Schiff has thst ability without having anyone at all convey it to him. He gave it to himself. After all, if not Schiff, then who among us could possibly qualify?

All of that notwithstanding, Schiff still looks like one of Jeff Dunham's dummies.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

humbolt said:
I believe Schiff has thst ability without having anyone at all convey it to him. He gave it to himself. After all, if not Schiff, then who among us could possibly qualify?

All of that notwithstanding, Schiff still looks like one of Jeff Dunham's dummies.
Click to expand...

He does !!!!
Who the hell ever told him that it creates a great visual impression to bury his eyelids deep in his skull when speaking. Geezuz that guy is creepy. And knowing he's capable of anything unscrupulous makes it worse.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

bubbabgone said:
He does !!!!
Who the hell ever told him that it creates a great visual impression to bury his eyelids deep in his skull when speaking. Geezuz that guy is creepy. And knowing he's capable of anything unscrupulous makes it worse.
Click to expand...

You will refrain from speaking. (Ha! I can do that, and you can't do anything about it. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak that I can silence? Lol. You'd have to speak so I can shut you up. I don't even need a taser).
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

humbolt said:
You will refrain from speaking. (Ha! I can do that, and you can't do anything about it. Is there anyone else here who wants to speak that I can silence? Lol. You'd have to speak so I can shut you up. I don't even need a taser).
Click to expand...

He's proud of his big gavel. I wonder if they let him bring it home for ... you know.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

Mach said:
It's the same as with attempted [most any crime] Fletch. Witness intimidation is about the act, not how successful you were at it.
Why is this always a Republican defense in the Trump era? Sure it happened, but it wasn't successful. It's so sad to see you guys defending crimes with nonsensical arguments.


I agree, everyone knows Trump abuses power, engages in corruption, and even criminal acts. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but that's exactly what's going on.


Straw that broke the camels back, OK. Now there is plenty evidence of intent, knowledge it's a bad act, etc. Why was he allowed to do it a hundred times? Because at every step of the way, you and many like you, made the choice to back his corrupt and criminal actions, in exchange for getting stuff you personally wanted. That's corruption. He has to be held to account by Republicans, because DOJ won't touch him.
Because DOJ wont' touch him after doing bad stuff over and over...therefore it's OK? That's crazy (yes, we have a ****ed up system that allows this).


You're admitting you've been corrupted though. You are participating in the corruption.
Literally, if you overlook his impeachable/criminal/corrupt behavior, because he gives you something you want in exchange, that's textbook corroputoin...unethical. Rules don't apply, because you were "bought off" so to speak, with his not vetoing Republican policy that came out that first year when he had a Republican H/S.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Im just not seeing anything that even remotely resembles 'intimidation' in that tweet. As for his supposed corruption, Mueller found nothing that the democrat House could use to impeach him. And with Ukraine, Im getting more certain by the day that the dems will not have the votes to actually impeach the guy. The lefts attempt to turn his every breath into some sort of crime has drained their credibility. At this point, after 3 years of impeachment talk and phony collusion narratives, you guys are basically the boy who cried wolf. No one believes you, at least no one on the right.
 
Re: Marie Yovanovitch testimony -- comments

Fletch said:
At this point, after 3 years of impeachment talk and phony collusion narratives, you guys are basically the boy who cried wolf. No one believes you, at least no one on the right.
Click to expand...

Trump colluded with Russia, that was well-evidenced. With Stone and Manafort, Trumps' connections to Russia (Via KK and Wikileaks), not cooperating and going to jail for it, the buck stopped there. It was criminal conspiracy that lacked sufficient evidence.

Mueller's report clearly laid out crimes Trump committed. Obstruction of Justice, but also Witness Tampering.

So when you claim that Trump did this sort of thing before and it wasn't a big deal, you're being fooled by the fact we cannot hold Trump to account for crimes, because he's above criminal law. Witness tampering for Stone/Manafort is in Mueller's report, he can't indict per DOJ policy. Democrats declined to push for impeachment on obstruction, rightfully believing the entire process took way too long.

That Trump can't be indicted != boy who cried wolf, but I can see how you might believe that. Had Trump not been POTUS, he'd have been long gone. When crimes like Trump's go unpunished, it emboldens them, and their corrupt supporters. I do agree that not holding a President to account, emboldens more bad behavior, to the point that relatively intelligent people like yourself no longer care that they do it...as long as it's for things you want.

The case to me looks open and shut. We'll once again, see.
 
Fletch said:
No, the difference is that you dont know wtf you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong...I love getting your comments but still wonder why you enjoy being ridiculed for dumb****tery like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom