'He's a patriot': Republicans defend key impeachment witness from attacks

It funs to watch them stumble over their words, doing mental gymnastics trying to say why when they did it, it was ok.

The democratic party in a nutshell right now.

To date there is no evidence of corruption. trump, however, has credible evidence that he DID shady shit. And as he's president that is a major deal. Anyone that doesn't think so should probably stay away from politics and skip casting votes.

She's cringey AF no doubt but so are the gullible Trump supporters that would take a bullet for him.

Maybe there is enough evidence for you, but until there is evidence that will convince republicans. Well you get the idea.

It's Republicans giving the evidence...……...

@LJS9502_basic: No evidence.... are you that naive? A Ukrainian oil company hires the vice president's son? Lmao you are absolutely delusional.

Yeah that's not evidence. And you call someone else delusional. smh

And again it´s not ironclad evidence. It´s an opinion and again feelings.

But there is no need to debate this since we already established that we will never agree, so just ask yourself this question.

"Has any of the so-called evidence made a move among republicans" if you can say no, then you know that your opinion does not matter.

Did I say that the subject of this thread deserves to be court-martialed for his testimony? No, I did not. I said that if he was testifying against a Democratic president half of you would be trying to get him court-martialed with some trumped-up excuse saying he disrespected his commander-in-chief. In fact, if Hillary Clinton was president right now I wouldn't have put it past her to have Tulsi Gabbard thrown in prison for what she said about her in reaction to being called a Russian asset.

Even if you want to consider that a gross exaggeration you are lying to yourself if you believe for a second Democrats would give a crap about the honor of a Purple Heart recipient if he was on the wrong side of the aisle. You can go back to the reaction on this forum when SNL mocked Dan Crenshaw's eye for a real-life example of why I'm calling BS on people in this thread acting like they're actually offended when a veteran is questioned.

Witnesses are ironclad evidence. They get many a conviction to use your court analogy of which you are so fond.

Wow.....that rant is a bit over the edge. But your OPINION is duly noted but filed under so what.

You know what else is an opinion? The consensus in this forum that Trump is guilty of being a Russian or Ukrainian (depending on the time of day) traitor. Mocking me for not agreeing isn't going to change the fact that the opinion of Trump's guilt is irrelevant until you can convince the Senate to remove him.

But I'm sure all we have to do is post pictures of highlights from one of the dozens of anti-Trump threads that get posted here weekly and at least half of the GOP senators will see the light and vote for removal.

No the consensus in this forum is that trump is probably guilty of obstruction, using tax money to get a foreign country involved in our election process, ie investigating his political rivals, abuse of power, and violating the emoluments clause based on the information we currently have.

You know there might not be so many anti trump threads here if he wasn't a bad choice for president. It's sad that people overlook his behavior because of the little letter next to his name. Nonetheless if it upsets you so much you might want to find another forum. Maybe hang out on a Fox News forum.

This fake Biden nonsense has been fact checked.

Trump just wanted to help his campaign, which is why all of these career officials and war heroes who heard it were terrified and are now testifying.

Too much evidence now.

@zaryia: lol are you saying Bidens son getting the job has nothing to do with Biden being VP?

Also the quote you posted from me had nothing to do with Bidens son. Just the fact that Obama along with every US president before him has been involved in quid pro quo with a foreign state.

Link?

To help them win an election by digging up dirt (or merely publicly stating they will investigate to hurt the opponent)? QPQ by themselves are not illegal.

You appear confused as to why this is a big issue.

I'm saying it's a fake conspiracy theory to suggest anything illegal was done.

Anyway can we get back on topic. Do you think Vindman is a traitor and can you refute his 1st hand testimony? How about the 9 other sworn testimonies and text messages?

@zaryia: It's not a big deal. You desperately want it to be but I have a feeling you will be terribly disappointed by the outcome. Much like Russia collusion and much like Stormy daniels.

And no if they put the same effort into investigating Biden I'm pretty sure you would find much more. VP sons making 50 million a month sounds a little fishy to me and it's a prime example how are political system fails us.

His testimony is a nothing burger . No smoking gun but doesn't matter because the Democrats will vote for the trial regardless and the Senate will never kick him out if office. Again a giant waste of time.

Wrong. We get that you'll excuse anything trump does...…..but it's not a nothing burger. Too much meat there dude.

Opinion, and one most Americans and legal experts disagree with.

I never said Trump colluded. Do not make things up.

I did say Russia Interfered, and the Mueller Report confirmed this.

Opinion, and one most Americans and legal experts disagree with.

There is quite a bit of evidence on this specific case, and that is why most Americans want him impeached and removed. Are you saying all of these testimonies are lies? The texts? The rough transcripts?

P.S. Why are you deflecting from the OP? Are you suggesting this war hero is lying? Should he be charged with perjury? Do you agree that he is a traitor?

@zaryia: You don't have any evidence what most Americans think of Bidens son. Stop your rambling. I'm saying that this will go nowhere. And many if these same experts were wishing Donald Trump was impeached before he even set foot in the office.

Well he's definitely given them reason now. He's corrupt. Period. If one doesn't see it then they're either uneducated, naïve, or corrupt oneself

@LJS9502_basic: The thing is I'm neither. And he may be corrupt but so is every other politician.

This is beyond every other politician. He's breaking laws. He goes against the Constitution. For you to defend that is a shame. For anyone to defend that is. The country is more important than any damn politician. George Washington warned in his farewell address about being partisan. He was right. We see it now. If the letter matches yours it's okay to obstruct. Profit from foreign governments. Etc.

At some point you guys have to put the country first.

What laws has he broken?

@LJS9502_basic: Please stop blabbering about the constitution. It makes me cringe when anyone on the left acts like it matters to them. You have tried to destroy the 2nd amendment repeatedly. So don't act like you care about it now.

Obstruction. As outlined in the Mueller report.

citation please.

On the contrary. I believe we should take the 2nd Amendment at it's word. You want to play with guns then you should be in a well regulated militia. I support that 100%.

@LJS9502_basic: So like any true Fascist you interpret and bend its meaning till it fits your perspective. Same with the first amendment another act the left constantly attacks. Again hearing you talk about the constitution is cringe inducing.

Mueller Report.....as stated above.

No I merely looked at the words. You should try it sometime.

Excerpt please.

@LJS9502_basic: So should you.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms"

Also what about free speech?

You just call anything you don't like hate speech and have it banned. Again the left has no right to talk about the constitution.

Supreme Court already did it, they’re the opinion that matters in interpreting it.

Cherry picking I see......the entire quote is such

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

If that is reversed some day I best not hear you whine.

@zaryia: dude, the GOP has become a cult of personality lead by a lying coward, draft dodger piece of crap. And stupid people back him.

Unsurprisingly that is the exact reason why some liberals want to pack the court; get a few justices appointed that would determine the Second Amendment only applies to militias so they could try and disarm legal gun owners. Not much different than the conservatives that want to pack the court with justices they think will overturn Roe v. Wade, and in that case, it's probably wrong too.

Or how about this scenario, since you would expect me to not complain if a decision came down declaring gun ownership only being a right to militias, would you accept a Supreme Court decision that decrees that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the children of illegal aliens?

Part of me is surprised you seem so eager to disarm legal gun owners. You hate Donald Trump and you assume that he's president because a bunch of bigoted morons voted for him. If those so-called bigoted morons succeed in getting him reelected next year or worse, elect someone even worse than him by your standards do you really want them to have control of all of the guns in the country?

Okay stop with the hypocrisy. That's exact same thing Republicans want to do. Pack the courts.

As for the 14th...……..read it.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If children of illegal immigrants are born in the US that applies. Not sure what point you thought you were making.

The 2nd Amendment was clearly taken out of context. As I said...…..I read the words in the Amendment...…..not the opinion of courts that can be stacked by politicians.

The Mueller report could not prove obstruction. They tried to say he obstructed because he wanted to fire Mueller, Did he fire Mueller no and he could have at any tome. They tried to infer collusion for what he was thinking. We now are consider guilty of a crime for what we think now. Of course the law hasn't been changes yet, give the left time and it will be.

This might surprise you, but I agree with your interpretation of the 14th Amendment. The reason I bought it up is that there are a lot of people that look at the part about being subject to our jurisdiction meaning that it doesn't apply to the children of people in the country illegally. Just like their interpretation is not agreed upon by most people regardless of their political beliefs neither is your interpretation of the Second Amendment that would be a green light to disarm the public because they aren't part of a militia.

As for trying to throw packing the courts on Republicans, several Democrats have already proposed packing the court if they successfully win back the presidency in 2020. That, along with impeaching Kavanaugh and possibly Goursh and Thomas has been something that has gained traction to get the court on the side of the left.

@r-gamer: I never said what Americans think of Bidens son. That is a strawman deflection because you lost.

I was not rambling, I discussed data.

I said most want him impeached or removed. Or more than the number who don't. 49 to 52%. Nixon was 20% at the same point in his Inquiry.

I do not care about your opinions on the experts and war heroes. I'm telling you what they said. Refute them with citation not Infowars nonsense.

Is this purple heart hero a traitor?

@zaryia: What did I lose exactly? We know you don't know how to debate. Can you prove that anything I said was false? You said that most Americans thought that the issue of Bidens son was nothing more then a conspiracy theory. That was just more bullshit ramblings on your part.

To your point of if hes a traitor? The answer is no. The great thing about this country is you can criticize your leaders and not be labeled a traitor.

Regardless your going to be disappointed by the end of this. Your purple heart hero will fail you just like Muller, Comey and the sleazy porn lawyer.

@r-gamer:

You have lost every single debate against me substantially, because I linked studies/fact-checks and you say "nu uh" as a response. That's exactly how it goes every single time. Everyone in the threads laugh at you. You even had to make a new account because I destroyed you so hard. You just say all of my studies I link are wrong and typing that makes you "win"....that's not a thing. Make a poll. I dare you.

Back on topic:

You mis-understood that post (which lead to your downfall.) I said most Americans and several experts agree what Trump did was wrong. As well most people who have sworn testimonials. Career diplomats and war heroes.

I won't be disappointed. He will be impeached as I said he would over this. Most Americans and legal experts say it was wrong and Congress pounced.

@zaryia: I've never made a new account and I've never lost a debate to you. Honestly I think you may border the autism spectrum. You don't even know how to debate. Most your arguments are not even debateable points and every time we argued I made you spin your ass into a pretzel. Outside of three raging lefties on here nobody agrees with you and most of them are delusional.

Will see if hes impeached and if it results in him leaving office. Otherwise you will continue your meltdown for the next 4 years.

That's pretty messed up, just wow.

Blackhairedhero, looks like I struck a nerve to cause you to post something so bannable. Funny, all I had to do was post facts.

Looks like you were too scared to try that Poll thread idea of mine. Heh.

Studies (HDI/Domestic-Terror) vs "Nu uh". Heh, talk about getting demolished. How about that user poll bro?

Back on Topic with an update:

Impeachment testimony: Vindman was told not to discuss Trump-Zelensky call

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/01/politics/alexander-vindman-john-eisenberg-testimony/index.html

I'd appreciate if you can discuss this topic. I know it's hard to defend Trump on the specifics, but please try. DO you think Vindman is lying? Citation?