The Schism Begins

[baddog]

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

[LumRaiderFan]

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.

[UT alum]

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.

[LumRaiderFan]

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.

[NetCat]

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]

21 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Partisan hack, showed his true colors with the report.

He wasn’t even familiar with his own freakin report.

[BS Wildcats]

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.

[UT alum]

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.

[UT alum]

13 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Partisan hack, showed his true colors with the report.

All that aside, LumRaiderFan, Merry Christmas!

[stevenash]

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.

[UT alum]

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!

[UT alum]

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.

[stevenash]

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.

[UT alum]

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.

[NetCat]

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^

[NetCat]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Merry Christmas, NetCat!

A merry Christmas to you as well. And a happy new year.

[LumRaiderFan]

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

[LumRaiderFan]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

All that aside, LumRaiderFan, Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you as well UTalum.

[Reagan]

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?

[UT alum]

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.

[UT alum]

2007 percent was the proper interval, not 2008.