NSFW Anon Archived POTUS transcript- No mention of Quid Pro Quo. Investigate bad actors . credit to Sara Carter (QRV)
submitted ago by 3442250?
Posted by: 3442250?
Posting time: 1.2 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 12/25/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 508
SCP: 148
150 upvotes, 2 downvotes (99% upvoted it)
~91 user(s) here now
Subverse anonymized: usernames are hidden and votes don't count.
NSFW: Yes
Authorized: No
Anon: Yes
Private: No
Type: Default
NSFW Anon Archived POTUS transcript- No mention of Quid Pro Quo. Investigate bad actors . credit to Sara Carter (QRV)
submitted ago by 3442250?
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 20726210? ago
This is an open forum, and for those who may read down this far they will see you exposing yourself. My assumption that you are a shill is evident from your nonsensical responses, and continued push on a false narrative. For a "person" of high "wits" your pretty fucking stupid.
Here, let me help you understand reality: 2/3 of the Senate = 67 votes. There are currently 45/D, 53R, 2/I. (Since Is vote D there are essentially = 47D votes).
To reach 67 - 20 R's would have to vote with D's. You yourself said there are 5 RINOs - so to humor you we'll say 47 + 5 = 52.
Now for the slow ones in class (that's you) an additional 15 Republican Senators would have to cross the isle and vote with D's. Question: Who's counting chickens? (that would be you, not me - another shill tactic - projection)
Summary:
a) There are current NOT enough votes in the House to Impeach (Accuse / Indict). Granted this could change, but it's unlikely (see c below)
b) If by some miracle the House DID impeach, 20 Republican Senators (or 15 non-RINOs) would need to vote for conviction in the Senate.
c) Underlying ALL of this LOGIC is of course something you are not acknowledging: Trump didn't do a fucking thing illegal, so the "charges" would be non-existent as defined by the Constitution (High Crimes and Misdemeanors). Given this fact, it is highly unlikely that Purple district Dems in the House would vote to start the process.
In conclusion, for a self-proclaimed person of high mental "wits", I recommend you reevaluate your self worth and take appropriate action (please stay away from dangerous weapons, they can be deadly in the hands of the ignorant, untrained, children.)
[–] 20729791? ago (edited ago)
When one has no factual evidence that the Senate and members of the Senate will not vote against the President proves what I said about you. You're basing your outcome on hyperbole (ASSUMPTIONS).
Naturally when challenged those who have a below zero IQ lash out with expletives.
[–] 20729932? ago (edited ago)
Again, all who wish to - can see your "argument" falling apart, and your "wits" being crushed.
Unless you have a functioning crystal ball, then your argument is ALSO based on Assumptions. Duh!
The difference between MY assumptions and your HYPERBOLE is that mine are based on LOGIC and precedence, while yours are based a false narrative that you wish to promote - which I believe to be: discourage / disparage / distract from the current reality, because you're either mentally lazy a true shill. I don't know which, but I suspect the latter.
Re: expletives.. this is VOAT dumbfuck, deal with it or leave (I know you won't because your a fucking shill and that is the truth of why you are here).
Next?