Lindsey Graham and the Republican response to public impeachment info

transporter

Well-Known Member
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Lindsey Graham, who contorts himself into pretzel knots in order to defend the disaster that is Donald Trump, has responded to the recent impeachment news as follows:

1. He refuses to read the transcripts of the House interviews. (JUst to point out the stunningly obvious...Graham has a law degree and will serve in the Senate as a juror should the impeachment process move into the Senate.)

2. He claims that Sonderland, who contributed to $1M to Trump's election/inaugural, only changed his testimony because he really is a closet progressive and/or Adam Schiff forced him to do so or he is in cahoots with "democratic operatives".

3. He claims Trump and his administration are too "incoherent" and "incapable" of pulling off a quid pro quo.

These are all unbelievable positions for a US Senator to take. But the last is stunning....
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried.

Lindsey Graham, who contorts himself into pretzel knots in order to defend the disaster that is Donald Trump, has responded to the recent impeachment news as follows:

1. He refuses to read the transcripts of the House interviews. (JUst to point out the stunningly obvious...Graham has a law degree and will serve in the Senate as a juror should the impeachment process move into the Senate.)

2. He claims that Sonderland, who contributed to $1M to Trump's election/inaugural, only changed his testimony because he really is a closet progressive and/or Adam Schiff forced him to do so or he is in cahoots with "democratic operatives".

3. He claims Trump and his administration are too "incoherent" and "incapable" of pulling off a quid pro quo.

These are all unbelievable positions for a US Senator to take. But the last is stunning....

The last one isn't that stunning.

Graham is a hypocrite who hides behind "partisan" arguments.

Calls the whole process "BS".


Which is weird considering that on Oct.20, he said:
"Sure. I mean ... show me something that ... is a crime," Graham told Axios' Jonathan Swan. "If you could show me that, you know, Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing."
https://www.axios.com/graham-hbo-in...ump-1375b703-f723-4a2c-9e15-7366ee25c55b.html

It would seem that Sondland's testimony provides some fodder to that. Along with Taylor's testimony that a national security adviser alerted him to Sondland's activities.

Regardless, as you said, Graham won't even read the transcripts now because he believes it's a politically motivated sham. One must wonder what is driving Graham to refuse to even read the evidence available.

Funny enough, and here's where the hypocrisy comes in, Graham supported impeaching Clinton based on the private interviews in the Starr report.
 

CPUSA

Well-Known Member
142428
 
Top