baddog Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 48 minutes ago, UT alum said: Do you not understand whistleblower laws? Not completely, but I found this. Please question the reference. This is the hidden content, please Sign In or Sign Up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 17 minutes ago, UT alum said: Mueller said if he could have reasonably declared the president broke no law, he would have said it. He didn’t. Mueller was a partisan hack that would have burned Trump if he could have. Couldn’t be decent enough to say he found nothing so he muddied the water in his report so Trump haters like yourself had something to keep going on. baddog 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 minute ago, LumRaiderFan said: Mueller was a partisan hack that would have burned Trump if he could have. Couldn’t be decent enough to say he found nothing so he muddied the water in his report so Trump haters like yourself had something to keep going on. He’s never been political in his adult life. He was a soldier, a prosecutor, and appointed FBI director by a Republican and re-appointed by a Democrat. Your hatred blinds you. Boyz N Da Hood 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 17 minutes ago, UT alum said: He’s never been political in his adult life. He was a soldier, a prosecutor, and appointed FBI director by a Republican and re-appointed by a Democrat. Your hatred blinds you. Partisan hack, showed his true colors with the report. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetCat Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 53 minutes ago, NetCat said: You guys better hope there's more than circumstantial, that should never be sufficient for any POTUS to be convicted 38 minutes ago, UT alum said: Let us hear from Mulvaney, Bolton, Giuliani, hell, young Biden for that matter. Why clam up if you’re innocent? I believe I’ve heard trump speak quite disparagingly about those who take the fifth. I'm fine with them talking, but I'm also fine with them pleading the 5th. It's a constitutional right for a reason. No my point is this: if we impeach and convict a president on only circumstantial evidence...it sets a horrible precedent for future presidents. They would in effect have lost tons of power to Congress and it will completely unbalance our "checks and balances" system. baddog and LumRaiderFan 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baddog Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 21 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said: Partisan hack, showed his true colors with the report. He wasn’t even familiar with his own freakin report. LumRaiderFan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BS Wildcats Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, UT alum said: He’s never been political in his adult life. He was a soldier, a prosecutor, and appointed FBI director by a Republican and re-appointed by a Democrat. Your hatred blinds you. Hatred is a two way street. Don't forget that. Your hatred is profound, as well. LumRaiderFan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 12 hours ago, NetCat said: I'm fine with them talking, but I'm also fine with them pleading the 5th. It's a constitutional right for a reason. No my point is this: if we impeach and convict a president on only circumstantial evidence...it sets a horrible precedent for future presidents. They would in effect have lost tons of power to Congress and it will completely unbalance our "checks and balances" system. Direct testimony is not circumstantial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 13 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said: Partisan hack, showed his true colors with the report. All that aside, LumRaiderFan, Merry Christmas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 37 minutes ago, UT alum said: Direct testimony is not circumstantial. Please give an example of direct testimony that states that Trump colluded with Russia or that Trump executed a quid pro quo. Please note that this testimony must be direct rather than a conclusion or supposition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 13 hours ago, NetCat said: I'm fine with them talking, but I'm also fine with them pleading the 5th. It's a constitutional right for a reason. No my point is this: if we impeach and convict a president on only circumstantial evidence...it sets a horrible precedent for future presidents. They would in effect have lost tons of power to Congress and it will completely unbalance our "checks and balances" system. Merry Christmas, NetCat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 3 minutes ago, stevenash said: Please give an example of direct testimony that states that Trump colluded with Russia or that Trump executed a quid pro quo. Please note that this testimony must be direct rather than a conclusion or supposition. That’s why Mulvaney, Bolton, and the two OMB guys need to be heard. They were the most directly involved. If they say nothing, then it’s lights out and Trump is acquitted. I just want to see if they say nothing under oath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenash Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 48 minutes ago, UT alum said: That’s why Mulvaney, Bolton, and the two OMB guys need to be heard. They were the most directly involved. If they say nothing, then it’s lights out and Trump is acquitted. I just want to see if they say nothing under oath. Were any of those individuals on the call? Is the transcript not acceptable to you? If my memory serves me correctly, after the Kavanaugh debacle was essentially over, your crowd was complaining that not all of the "witnesses" had been heard. You know, the "witnesses" who suddenly appeared when it became apparent the left really had nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 33 minutes ago, stevenash said: Were any of those individuals on the call? Is the transcript not acceptable to you? If my memory serves me correctly, after the Kavanaugh debacle was essentially over, your crowd was complaining that not all of the "witnesses" had been heard. You know, the "witnesses" who suddenly appeared when it became apparent the left really had nothing. In light of the emails turned up over the weekend, I’d say further questioning is warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetCat Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, stevenash said: Please give an example of direct testimony that states that Trump colluded with Russia or that Trump executed a quid pro quo. Please note that this testimony must be direct rather than a conclusion or supposition. This^ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NetCat Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, UT alum said: Merry Christmas, NetCat! A merry Christmas to you as well. And a happy new year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 56 minutes ago, stevenash said: Were any of those individuals on the call? Is the transcript not acceptable to you? If my memory serves me correctly, after the Kavanaugh debacle was essentially over, your crowd was complaining that not all of the "witnesses" had been heard. You know, the "witnesses" who suddenly appeared when it became apparent the left really had nothing. +1000000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LumRaiderFan Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 1 hour ago, UT alum said: All that aside, LumRaiderFan, Merry Christmas! Merry Christmas to you as well UTalum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reagan Posted December 24, 2019 Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 2 hours ago, UT alum said: Direct testimony is not circumstantial. UT, one question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 54 minutes ago, Reagan said: UT, one question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Yeah, but looking back, I’ve found myself better off after each 4 year interval as far back as I can remember, save 2008. Speaking for myself, America’s been great for as long as I’ve been alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UT alum Posted December 24, 2019 Author Report Share Posted December 24, 2019 2007 percent was the proper interval, not 2008. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.