The Trump "So What" Defense.

[Sun Devil 92]

If Lindsey Graham tells you to put a 0.38 in your mouth and pull the trigger...you'll buy off on that too ?

I'll get him on the phone.

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

 

[Faun]

It's the Graham Rule on impeachment. Who cares if you don't like it?

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Googled it and could not find anything.

Perhaps you could provide a link.

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

 

[Faun]

Sure...

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

LOLOL

You're funny.

I think it was Biden who made up that rule.

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

 

[Faun]

LOLOL

You're funny.

​

... tell me more about rules.

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

So? Again, that only reflects rightarded hypocrisy.

Biden said something... you call that a rule.

Graham said something... you insist that's not a rule.

Exactly how loudly do you want to broadcast your hypocrisy??

 

[Lakhota]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

Hillary? Is that like a diversion? You failed to mention Benghazi...

 

[flacaltenn]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

Always happy to make you smile Chief.. I'm worried you're pretty stressed out for too long now....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Sure.....you can google that one. It's all over the place. Biden denies it and it certainly isn't binding.

I was just stating a fact.

So....you keep trying.

You've lost and you know it.

Suck on it.

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

So? Again, that only reflects rightarded hypocrisy.

Biden said something... you call that a rule.

Graham said something... you insist that's not a rule.

Exactly how loudly do you want to broadcast your hypocrisy??

I didn't insist there was no Gram rule. I said I could not find the Graham rule on the internet.

If you google the Biden Rule....you'll get all kinds of hits.

So I said does his one statement make it a rule...didn't think so. If there is an accepted Graham rule I am sure you can provide links.

Now SFTU and keep licking Adam Schitt's ass.

 

[flacaltenn]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

Hillary? Is that like a diversion? You failed to mention Benghazi...

Nope.. No diversion.. Just comparing classic political defenses.. Except yours is early speculation and mine was a true classic...

 

[Lakhota]

ARE THEY SERIOUS? TRUMP ‘DID NOTHING WRONG’

So funny. Only the truly retarded will buy it.

 

[Lakhota]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

Always happy to make you smile Chief.. I'm worried you're pretty stressed out for too long now....

You did make me smile, fecaltenn.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ARE THEY SERIOUS? TRUMP ‘DID NOTHING WRONG’

So funny. Only the truly retarded will buy it.

Well, you failed your own test.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I've heard several Trump supporters say that even if everything Trump has been accused of is true - it's not impeachable. Is that a reasonable defense? What do you think?

It has long been obvious that Republicans would ultimately converge on this final defense of President Trump: Even if he did everything he has been accused of doing, and perhaps a lot more that we don’t know about, it’s absolutely fine!

We now have a particularly ugly preview of what this defense may look like, as Trump’s Senate trial gets underway. On Sean Hannity’s Thursday night show, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus said:

Sometimes the best defense is the ‘so what’ defense. If everything the Democrats said is true, it’s still not impeachable. If everything Lev Parnas said is true, it’s still not impeachable. That’s what this is about.​

What’s truly perverse here is that if Trump did nothing wrong, then no one could speak to that more forcefully than the witnesses Democrats want to hear from, and who Trump and McConnell desperately do not. If withholding the aid was correct on the merits, why not hear from those directly involved in that decision?

The answer is that Trump and McConnell know Trump did engage in profoundly corrupt, impeachable conduct. Trump used the power of his office — and the conditioning of official acts, including withholding hundreds of millions in appropriated military aid from a vulnerable ally — to strong-arm that ally into manufacturing disinformation to corrupt the 2020 election on his behalf.

More: Hannity previews Trump’s final defense: So what if he’s guilty?

Is this related to the Hillary "What difference at this point does this make?" --- defense???? That worked well didn't it???

This was all SPECULATION BEFORE the defense got up to speak.. What ACTUALLY occurred is they started with facts, continued with facts, and ENDED with facts today for 3 hours.. And during that time, they bored the fuck out of nobody and didn't spending HOURS impugning and flaming the Senate or Democrats.. And they didn't spend repetitive HOURS wrapping themselves as patriots and heroes and defenders of the Constitution..

That last part is so incredibly funny, I can laugh every time I hear it...

Pretty good "preview" right there.... Don'tchathink?

Hillary? Is that like a diversion? You failed to mention Benghazi...

Nope.. No diversion.. Just comparing classic political defenses.. Except yours is early speculation and mine was a true classic...

That's always the case.

Shitting Bull is more about wishful thinking than facts.

 

[Faun]

And I Googled Graham's and even linked it for ya.

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

So? Again, that only reflects rightarded hypocrisy.

Biden said something... you call that a rule.

Graham said something... you insist that's not a rule.

Exactly how loudly do you want to broadcast your hypocrisy??

I didn't insist there was no Gram rule. I said I could not find the Graham rule on the internet.

If you google the Biden Rule....you'll get all kinds of hits.

So I said does his one statement make it a rule...didn't think so. If there is an accepted Graham rule I am sure you can provide links.

Now SFTU and keep licking Adam Schitt's ass.

"I didn't insist there was no Gram rule."

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

Sell stupid elsewhere.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I found the spot on youtube.

I put in Graham Rule and found zip, nada...nothing.

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

So? Again, that only reflects rightarded hypocrisy.

Biden said something... you call that a rule.

Graham said something... you insist that's not a rule.

Exactly how loudly do you want to broadcast your hypocrisy??

I didn't insist there was no Gram rule. I said I could not find the Graham rule on the internet.

If you google the Biden Rule....you'll get all kinds of hits.

So I said does his one statement make it a rule...didn't think so. If there is an accepted Graham rule I am sure you can provide links.

Now SFTU and keep licking Adam Schitt's ass.

"I didn't insist there was no Gram rule."

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

Sell stupid elsewhere.

How typical....out of context.

You showed a tape of him making a statement.

I said I could not find it. I figured it it was a rule...I should be able to find a reference to the rule.

I could not.

What part of that does you Pelosi ass sucking moronic little brain does not get that ?

 

[Faun]

So? That only serves to show what hypocrites you righties are.

Biden makes a comment, you call it the Biden Rule.

Graham makes a comment, you insist it's not a rule.

I simply said, I could not find it when I googled the Graham rule. Even that should be easy for a dumbass like you to understand.

So? Again, that only reflects rightarded hypocrisy.

Biden said something... you call that a rule.

Graham said something... you insist that's not a rule.

Exactly how loudly do you want to broadcast your hypocrisy??

I didn't insist there was no Gram rule. I said I could not find the Graham rule on the internet.

If you google the Biden Rule....you'll get all kinds of hits.

So I said does his one statement make it a rule...didn't think so. If there is an accepted Graham rule I am sure you can provide links.

Now SFTU and keep licking Adam Schitt's ass.

"I didn't insist there was no Gram rule."

That makes it a rule ?

Didn't think so ?

Sell stupid elsewhere.

How typical....out of context.

You showed a tape of him making a statement.

I said I could not find it. I figured it it was a rule...I should be able to find a reference to the rule.

I could not.

What part of that does you Pelosi ass sucking moronic little brain does not get that ?

LOLOL

You aren't even bright enough to think up your own insults.

Faun: Is everyone on the right an ass-kissing brain-dead sycophant like you?

Sun Devil 92: What part of that does you Pelosi ass sucking moronic little brain does not get that ?​

And now, thanks to the Graham Rule, no statute need be violated to impeach Impeached Trump.

“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic, if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.” ~ Lindsey Graham​

 

[Lakhota]

TRUMP THREATENS NPR AFTER POMPEO DISASTER INTERVIEW

This must end.

 

[Lakhota]

The Bolton Bombshell (from his book)

Drafts of the book outline the potential testimony of the former national security adviser if he were called as a witness in the president’s impeachment trial.

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

NYT: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Demands for Inquiries, Bolton Book Says

John Bolton Reportedly Recalls Trump Tying Ukraine Aid To Biden Investigation

How can Republicans not vote for witnesses after this?