Fox News' Judge Napolitano: What Trump has admitted to regarding contact with Ukraine is a crime

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  121 comments

Fox News' Judge Napolitano: What Trump has admitted to regarding contact with Ukraine is a crime
Trump has admitted he requested Zelensky investigate the son of 2020 presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, and Napolitano said that yes, "it is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Fox News' Judge Napolitano: What Trump has admitted to regarding contact with Ukraine is a crime


9:31 p.m.




It's probably a good thing that President Trump was busy at the United Nations on Tuesday, because the frequent Fox News viewer wouldn't have liked what he heard during anchor Shep Smith's afternoon show.

Smith was joined by Judge Andrew Napolitano, the network's senior judicial analyst. His appearance came shortly before House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced she directed the House to launch a   formal impeachment inquiry   against Trump, and Smith asked Napolitano about all sorts of scenarios involving Trump and his phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and whether they would be crimes. Trump has admitted he requested Zelensky investigate the son of 2020 presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, and Napolitano said that yes, "it is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

The whistleblower who   brought attention to the call   went through the proper channels and was deemed credible by the intelligence community's inspector general, but acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire did not pass the complaint along to Congress, as required by law. This was a bad move, Napolitano said, and the "administration is on very, very thin ice, on the grounds on which it blocked it for two reasons." First, the statute says if a complaint is found to be credible and urgent by the inspector general, it shall, not may, be shared with the bipartisan leaders of the House and Senate.

Also, it was a "cockamamie" ruling from the Department of Justice that Maguire is using to defend his decision not to pass the complaint to Congress — they are claiming that the president doesn't work for the intelligence community, therefore the complaint is moot. "Moot?" Napolitano said. "The complaint accuses the president of the United States of bribery, how can that be moot? The Congress has every right under the statute to know about it." Bribery, he continued, is "absolutely an impeachable offense, there's no equivocation. Why do I say that? Because it's stated in the Constitution. The basis for impeachment: treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Watch the video below.  



Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago

Even Fox News says Trump is a criminal. Impeach and remove. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

When did you start this love affair with the judge let me guess the second he said something damning of Trump.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  MUVA @1.1    4 weeks ago
When did you start this love affair with the judge let me guess the second he said something damning of Trump.  

And to think, I remember way back when he couldn't STAND Fox News and would immediately dismiss it as a source if any right-winger dared to use it as one!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Notice I said "even" Fox News says he is a criminal. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.3  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

I love the judge he and  grandpa were a hoot back in the day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.2    4 weeks ago

I read your post and article.

My comment stands.

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.5  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    4 weeks ago

And then there's Shep Smith jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

Shep Smith Seemingly Calls Out Fox News Colleagues on Biden-Ukraine ‘Conspiracy Theory’

The Fox News anchor railed against the “baseless” claims, made by many of his own pro-Trump colleagues, about Biden and Ukraine.

Moments after Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden  said Congress must move forward with an impeachment inquiry  if President Donald Trump doesn’t comply with a request to turn over the whistleblower complaint, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith set the record straight that the narrative being pushed by Team Trump on Biden and Ukraine is “baseless” and a “conspiracy theory.”

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.1.5    4 weeks ago

You got to love Shep he can cry on demand.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.7  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @1.1    4 weeks ago
When did you start this love affair with the judge let me guess the second he said something damning of Trump. 

It speaks volumes that even those who have religiously supported this moron of a president are refusing to stand behind him on this one.  That is what John is wanting to emphasize, [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.8  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @1.1    4 weeks ago
When did you start this love affair with the judge let me guess the second he said something damning of Trump.  

Why are you addressing John rather than the topic? 

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.9  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

Another one. Why are you addressing John rather than the topic? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.11  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @1.1.3    4 weeks ago
I love the judge he and  grandpa were a hoot back in the day.

Yet Napolitano is STILL the senior judicial analyst for FOX and I'm quite sure that he's forgotten more about the law than you ever knew. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.7    4 weeks ago

Muva, Sister Mary can beat you up badly (mentally and verbally). Dont mess with her unless you want to end up in traction. 

full-body-cast-475x339.jpg

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.13  MrFrost  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
It speaks volumes that even those who have religiously supported this moron of a president are refusing to stand behind him on this one.

Yep. It's not like the Mueller investigation that had many actors and more threads that we could count. This is cut and dry, trump got caught and he has all but admitted it. He's fucked. And his cronies in the senate that will refuse to vote for impeachment will be looking for jobs come 2020...maybe they can go sell hamberders. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.14  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @1.1    4 weeks ago

When did you start this love affair with the judge let me guess the second he said something damning of Trump.  

When did you start disagreeing with what people on fox news say? The second they said something damning of Trump? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.1.15  Tacos!  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.7    4 weeks ago
It speaks volumes that even those who have religiously supported this moron of a president are refusing to stand behind him on this one.

Who are you referring to?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.16  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @1.1.15    4 weeks ago

if the shoe fits Cinderella, it must be her sisters, who R known Katty Chathy's 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.17  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.11    4 weeks ago

WOW!!!! he was a superior court Judge, in New Jersey, for a whopping 8 whole years, never a federal judge and can you name 1 time he has ever been proven right in his predictions?

He is simply still butt hurt that trump picked Kavanaugh over him. Napolitano should thank him! If trump would have picked him for the supreme court, some other lying democrat pawn would have said Napolitano groped her in the 3rd grade or some other bullshit story. 

 
 
 
squiggy
1.1.18  squiggy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

thumb on the scale

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.13    4 weeks ago
'maybe they can go sell hamberders.'

and covfefe

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.20  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.1.17    4 weeks ago
he was a superior court Judge, in New Jersey, for a whopping 8 whole years, never a federal judge

but then you say

He is simply still butt hurt that trump picked Kavanaugh over him. Napolitano should thank him! If trump would have picked him for the supreme court, some other lying democrat pawn would have said Napolitano groped her in the 3rd grade or some other bullshit story.

WHY would he even have been considering him then ?

Thats fckn stupid

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.21  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.20    4 weeks ago

I never said trump makes good decisions. He hasn’t murdered anyone yet. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.22  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.20    4 weeks ago

Speaking of fucking stupid, can you point out where Kagan was a judge? Anywhere? So you are saying it’s fucking stupid to not appoint but consider a superior court judge. How fucking stupid must Barry the daft be?  

Cant wait to see how you try to spin that.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.23  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.1.22    4 weeks ago

Just STOP digging ure hole.

"So you are saying it’s fucking stupid to not appoint but consider a superior court judge."

THAT WAS YOU

i commented abut it     WTF is wrong with your comprehension disability ??? 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.24  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.1.21    4 weeks ago
He hasn’t murdered anyone yet.

r u sure

he sure worships those who have and do, like lil' kim n putin

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.25  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.24    4 weeks ago

So which country did trump allow Putin to annex? how many Americans did trump allow putin to bomb?  Barry was "flexible enough for the next three presidents.    But but but Trump!

Fucking hysterical.

Please detail exactly what trump has done for putin in comparison to Barry the daft?

As for worship, that seems to be a democrat thing. but your projections are noted. all hail barry the first. The democrats seem to be so fucking stupid they aren't happy with the first, so see those idiots wanted to elect their spouses next. that's fucking worship!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.26  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.23    4 weeks ago

I never said it was fucking stupid to consider him, that was you, 

FAIL! at deflection!

I simple said I didn't support his decisions, It seems you dug this hole. 

So how fucking stupid was Barry for appointing someone who never was a judge......Anywhere?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.27  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    4 weeks ago

I will address the article.

"it is a crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."

Please provide the text in the conversation where he asked for "aid for his campaign".  If Biden in fact pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor as Biden has stated, why can't the details of that request be made public.  Biden should provide an explanation as to why this request was made. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.28  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.27    4 weeks ago
If Biden in fact pressured Ukraine to fire a prosecutor as Biden has stated, why can't the details of that request be made public.

They are public if you bother to look.  

What Happened in Ukraine?

Fact Check: Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine

 
 
 
It Is ME
1.1.29  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Why are you addressing John rather than the topic? 

" equal standards " ? jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.30  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.28    4 weeks ago

From your article: both used the leverage of American government money to try to force action.

Please point out where Trump used money to pressure Ukraine.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.31  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
Why are you addressing John rather than the topic? 

Gee, it must be because he addressed me first. Read 1.1.2 and then 1.1.4

Now, any other questions you need answered you couldn't glean from reading through the posts here?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.31    4 weeks ago
Gee, it must be because he addressed me first. Read 1.1.2 and then 1.1.4

Nope. John relied to you, he address your comment. 

Now, any other questions you need answered you couldn't glean from reading through the posts here?

None that you could answer. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.33  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.32    4 weeks ago
Nope. John relied to you, he address your comment. 

That is a false statement, and easily proven to be false.

You need to read more carefully. My very first comment to JR is when I reply TO his post TO me in 1.1.2. My reply is 1.1.4.

Come on, it really isn't that hard for anyone to simply LOOK at my comments here and SEE that.

Now, I know you will insist that you are right, so here is how you can PROVE it:

List my first (1st) comment to JR here. Helpful hint here---it will be FROM me and ADDRESSED TO him.

Now, does my comment to him come AFTER his comment to me or BEFORE his comment?

This is pretty basic stuff.

Why do I need to go through this for you?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.34  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.33    4 weeks ago

Oh I see, you're incapable of understanding the difference between addressing John and addressing his comment. Can't help you. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.35  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.34    4 weeks ago
Can't help you. 

Didn't ask for it.

Just wish you would make sure that what you post is factual and truthful.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.36  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.35    4 weeks ago

how many licks does it take to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop ?

,

So, do you now no longer respect Judge Napolitano ?

or don't you judge   Napolitano style ? He does have his own style.

I've gained new respect for him a ways back, as he was speaking truth on Fox news which i do watch, as i like to see their talking points now and then. i try and get my news from varying sources. it gives one a more well rounded informed view on things.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.37  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.35    4 weeks ago

Why? Don't you want me to follow your lead? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.37    4 weeks ago
Why? Don't you want me to follow your lead? 

No need for sniping. If you think something in one of my posts isn't factual and truthful, please point it out and then prove it.

No need to be mad at me because I responded to exactly what you wrote and proved it to be false.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.39  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.38    4 weeks ago
No need for sniping.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.39    4 weeks ago

I kind of figured on that type of response instead of facts and truth.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.1.41  Ozzwald  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.30    4 weeks ago
From your article: both used the leverage of American government money to try to force action. Please point out where Trump used money to pressure Ukraine.

Congratulations, you managed to ignore 99% of the article, and string together almost half a sentence that you think supports your argument.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.42  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.17    4 weeks ago
WOW!!!! he was a superior court Judge, in New Jersey, for a whopping 8 whole years, never a federal judge and can you name 1 time he has ever been proven right in his predictions?

Yet Napolitano is STILL the senior judicial analyst for FOX and I'm quite sure that he's forgotten more about the law than you ever knew. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.43  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.42    4 weeks ago

Since I don’t give a fuck what you think.......I really don’t care if you think a Fox News talking head knows more about the law.

using your criteria, Shawn hannitty is a number one political analyst on Fox News, he makes you look like you don’t have a clue about what you are talking about!

you support an apple to apple comparison like that right?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.44  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.1.43    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.45  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.44    4 weeks ago

Why? Because I don’t care what an anonymous stranger on a message board thinks of me? [deleted]

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.46  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @1.1.44    4 weeks ago

Here you go, now you can help the poor whistle blower. 

https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-anonymous-intelligence-official

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
1.1.47  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @1.1.45    4 weeks ago

Whatever,  you've been on a tear all day

N joy

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.48  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.43    3 weeks ago
Since I don’t give a fuck what you think.......I really don’t care if you think a Fox News talking head knows more about the law.

Then why do you keep asking me questions? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.49  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.48    3 weeks ago

My mistake, I was hoping you at some point would have an intelligent response, I won't make that mistake again.

But it's good to know you worship the talking heads on TV like Napolitano as experts.

It must gall you to know that Hannity is so much smarter than you......He is after all a talking head on TV, I personally try to make up my own mind and not allow others to do it for me.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.50  loki12  replied to  loki12 @1.1.45    3 weeks ago

Totally fucked up moral compass there Perrie IMO, I fully accept the CoC violation, but I would be interested in the logic that says telling someone to take drugs is better than telling them to seek therapy?  

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.51  bugsy  replied to  loki12 @1.1.49    3 weeks ago
would have an intelligent response,

I've been asking for that for a while now.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.52  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.49    3 weeks ago
My mistake, I was hoping you at some point would have an intelligent response, I won't make that mistake again.

Your mistake was in failing to connect one part of your comment with another. I have no doubt that you will continue to do so...

But it's good to know you worship the talking heads on TV like Napolitano as experts.

It's good to see that you, along with your fellow travelers, devolve to strawmen rather than posting cogent arguments. 

It must gall you to know that Hannity is so much smarter than you......He is after all a talking head on TV,

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Wait...

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

I personally try to make up my own mind and not allow others to do it for me.

Good for you. Now, if you could just portray the independence in your comments we might get somewhere.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.53  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.51    3 weeks ago
I've been asking for that for a while now.

Since that comment is your first participation in this thread, it doesn't seem so. Do you have a relevant on topic question? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.54  gooseisgone  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.41    3 weeks ago
 ignore 99%

You're right the bigger takeaway from your article is: " the essential difference is that Biden’s intervention was aimed at fighting corruption in Ukraine, while Trump’s appears to have been engaging in it" which is total bullshit.

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.55  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.52    3 weeks ago
Your mistake

Opinion with no basis in fact.   Fail!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.56  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.55    3 weeks ago
Opinion with no basis in fact.   Fail!

Yes, your opinion with no basis in fact is a FAIL. Good to see you acknowledging it. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.57  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.52    3 weeks ago
It's good to see that you, along with your fellow travelers, devolve to strawmen rather than posting cogent arguments.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA.................................Your awesome dude! Tell me how much smarter a talking head like Napolitano is again.............

FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.58  loki12  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.54    3 weeks ago
which is total bullshit.

I'm thinking all his posts belong in that bucket, with JR's

RUSSIA!!!!!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.59  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.57    3 weeks ago

Show me were I ever said that Napolitano was 'smart'? 

See that's why it's called a strawman loki. I NEVER said that. You inferred it and based a bunch of bullshit on that inference. That failure is on you. 

 
 
 
loki12
1.1.60  loki12  replied to  Dulay @1.1.59    3 weeks ago

No more attention for you!

i guess saying I talking head has forgotten more about the law then I will ever know shouldn’t have given that impression,

which is why another talking head is obviously smarter than you when it comes to politics and current events.

to quote another poster, go ahead and have the last word, I know how much it means to you.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.61  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @1.1.60    3 weeks ago
i guess saying I talking head has forgotten more about the law then I will ever know shouldn’t have given that impression,

As I said, what you inferred is on you.

You gave too much credence to someone that knows the law better than you.

They could be complete idiots in other avenues.

Hannity on the other hand is an idiot in ALL avenues. 

Though I have heard that he's pretty good at throwing toy footballs. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.62  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.12    3 weeks ago

I feel sorry for the guy in the picture, especially when he has an itch or has to pee.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    4 weeks ago

Just love the folk who defend the man who said ( paraphrase ) "I believe Putin before I believe my own American INTEL."  Now that is rich.  Really rich, ya think?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.1  gooseisgone  replied to  bbl-1 @2    4 weeks ago
before I believe my own American INTEL

Yeah really.....imagine the American Intel community totally made up a story about Russian collusion.  Now that is rich, really rich, ya think?

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  gooseisgone @2.1    3 weeks ago

SVR or FSB?  Not sure which one you represent.

Clarification would be appreciated.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  bbl-1 @2    3 weeks ago

He has the nerve to call a whistle blower a traitor.  If he wants the true traitor, he needs only to look in a mirror.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    4 weeks ago

I wonder if fox news will start calling trump a RINO before or after his impeachment? 

512

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3    4 weeks ago

I think it's been fair to call him a RINO for a long time, considering he was a Democrat up until about 2012 or so when he decided he needed to be a Republican to run for president.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    4 weeks ago

I think it's been fair to call him a RINO for a long time, considering he was a Democrat up until about 2012 or so when he decided he needed to be a Republican to run for president.

Perhaps, but he has an (R) after his name now and it was the Republican party that nominated him. Sorry buddy, the GOP owns him now. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    4 weeks ago

Don't apologize to me. I didn't nominate him.

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

Don't apologize to me. I didn't nominate him.

I didn't say you did, I said the GOP did. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.1    4 weeks ago
I think it's been fair to call him a RINO for a long time, considering he was a Democrat up until about 2012 or so when he decided he needed to be a Republican to run for president.

He had no choice but to run as a Republican. 

Democrats would never vote for someone who is racist, misogynistic, ignorant, illiterate, orange, or lies more than everyone else in politics combined.  Republicans however would make him their poster boy.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    4 weeks ago
He had no choice but to run as a Republican.

He knew Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. Everyone knew that. That's why he had to run as a Republican.

Democrats would never vote for someone who is racist, misogynistic, ignorant, illiterate, orange, or lies more than everyone else in politics combined.

Other than being orange, you can say all those things about Joe Biden. Of course orangeness, and its relative importance is in the eye of the beholder.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.6  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
He knew Hillary would be the Democratic nominee. Everyone knew that. That's why he had to run as a Republican.

You think he would have won the Democratic nomination over anyone else?  Wow.........

Other than being orange, you can say all those things about Joe Biden.

You are correct, you could say them about Biden.  The difference is that you would be LYING if you said them about Biden.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.7  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.6    4 weeks ago
The difference is that you would be LYING if you said them about Biden.

Really? Ask me to prove it. jrSmiley_101_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.7    4 weeks ago

Snort!

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.7    4 weeks ago
Really? Ask me to prove it.

Proof to you is aluminum foil hat conspiracies to everyone else.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.9    4 weeks ago
Proof to you is aluminum foil hat conspiracies to everyone else.

Yeah, that's about typical. Attack it without seeing it and then don't even have the stones to ask for it. jrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gif  Thanks for revealing yourself.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.11  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

I dont see anyone preventing you from posting your proof that Biden is guilty of something nefarious in Ukraine. 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.1.12  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

You mean like Robert Bird?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

It'd help a lot if you read and understood the thread before commenting.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MrFrost @3    4 weeks ago

Trump has more in common with OJ than most realize

 
 
 
Tacos!
4  Tacos!    4 weeks ago

I think it's fine to investigate it, but I don't like the enthusiasm with which people are pronouncing it a crime before they know all the facts. Considering that people have been talking about impeaching Trump since before he was even elected, it's hard to take seriously the idea that Democrats in the House are merely doing their duty.

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

I wasn't for impeachment and if I am honest? I am still on the fence about it. But, given this transgression? It's a clearly impeachable offense and it's not even the first one. At some point, the right thing needs to be done. Putting it off makes the Dems look weak, but failing to actually get the votes for an impeachment will be catastrophic for them in 2020. I am no fan of Pelosi, but she isn't an idiot either. No way she would endorse an impeachment inquiry unless she knows it's a slam dunk. 

I am no lawyer, and I don't know anymore than anyone else here, but...my gut tells me that trump may be screwed here. Based on the facts that I know? Trump looks guilty as hell and I am not putting any faith at all in the transcripts that the WH will release tomorrow because we already know Barr will do anything and everything to protect trump. I mean, trump admitted he made the call and admitted Biden did come up. We also already know that he had the funding for the Ukraine held back 4 days before he even made the call anyway. There is a lot here, and none of it looks good for trump. 

Besides... Rudy pretty much let the cat out of the bag on CNN the other day when he admitted he asked for the Ukraine to investigate Biden on trump's behalf. Seriously, maybe trump needs to pay rudy 130k to stop incriminating him on live tv. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 weeks ago
I am no lawyer,

That doesn't matter. This is a purely political exercise and it doesn't even happen often enough to say conclusively what the steps and results should or should not be. We're all going to have thoughts and opinions on it.

trump may be screwed here

A lot is going to depend, I think, on how he responds and what the facts are. So far, he's at least admitting to some things, which may be in his favor. I think Trump's core failing has always been that he believes strongly that he should just be able to do whatever he wants.

Conversely, the Democrats have a history of taking ordinary behaviors and trying to scandalize them. That's not in their favor, obviously.

A key is going to be the ability to articulate to the American people exactly what it is they're accusing him of doing wrong and why they should care. For example, when Bill Clinton was impeached, there was a lot of sympathy for him because everyone can understand the desire to hide an affair and, on the surface, it doesn't seem to threaten democracy.

Telling people that Trump talked about investigating Biden isn't going to look impeachable if it turns out Biden or his son actually did something wrong. And just as we don't want the president seeking outside interference in an election, we also don't want to say that the simple fact that someone is a candidate somehow excuses them from justice.

Rudy pretty much let the cat out of the bag

He's terrible. I see that guy on TV and I think Trump has a great malpractice case against him.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
the Democrats have a history of taking ordinary behaviors and trying to scandalize them. That's not in their favor, obviousl

it's a good thing Trump would never behave ordinarily,

and NEVER Scandalously !

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    4 weeks ago
Telling people that Trump talked about investigating Biden isn't going to look impeachable if it turns out Biden or his son actually did something wrong.

So just like Trump, you want to make this about the Bidens. 

And just as we don't want the president seeking outside interference in an election, we also don't want to say that the simple fact that someone is a candidate somehow excuses them from justice.

Whose 'justice'? If this was about justice, the FBI would be the investigative agency, NOT somebody in Ukraine. 

Seriously, Trump can't insist that corruption is rampant in Ukraine out of one side of his mouth and insist that Ukraine's justice system can be trusted to investigate American citizens out of the other side. 

The fact is, the prosecutor for Ukraine shot down Giuliani's bullshit conspiracy theory and cleared the Bidens back in May. There are multiple news articles reporting that fact. I'm pretty fucking sure that the prosecutor for Ukraine has more important things on his plate than reopening a completed investigation merely to give Trump and Giuliani another shinny thing for distraction. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    4 weeks ago
So just like Trump, you want to make this about the Bidens. 

Put your head in the sand if you like, but this requires an examination of the Bidens. If Democrats are just going stomp their feet and insist on "nothing to see here" that will look corrupt as hell and you'll be doing Trump a favor.

If this was about justice, the FBI would be the investigative agency, NOT somebody in Ukraine.

I do think he should have communicated with the FBI over this. However, if the wrongdoing took place in Ukraine, as alleged, Ukrainian authorities would necessarily be involved.

the prosecutor for Ukraine shot down Giuliani's bullshit conspiracy theory and cleared the Bidens back in May

Is that the corrupt prosecutor who was fired for being corrupt? 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
4.1.5  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @4.1.3    4 weeks ago
So just like Trump, you want to make this about the Bidens. 

It is about Biden.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  MrFrost @4.1    4 weeks ago

I'm a little rusty on my civics lesson, but doesn't the House actually have to hear testimony to determine if there is enough evidence to impeach (indict) like a grand jury does?

So just because Pelosi called for an impeachment inquiry, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be enough evidence to impeach (indict), correct?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.6    4 weeks ago
I'm a little rusty

thats when a drink a little CLR

.

I had a Honda Civic once, it was also rusty, i gave it a tetanus shot but it locked up tires anyway, i nearly broke my jaw

.

i never had civics, perhaps i was too civil...

but i believe once there is a majority in the house that go for it, there is an investigation, then a vote to impeach or not.

if they vote to go and impeach, i believe it goes to the Senate where i'm thinking 2/3's or is it 3/4s are required to have potUS removed, then about a Trillion gallons of bleach

total hearsay i heard here, or say

somewhere or no where  else      why would i remember ?

i am only capable of remembering to forget, don't you remember...

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    3 weeks ago

Why was Trump asking the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden?  Joe Biden is a private citizen, and the matter has already been investigated in Ukraine. 

Try to see what is front of everyone's face. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    3 weeks ago
Joe Biden is a private citizen

He is now, but I don't know why that should matter. Private citizens are investigated every day. Democrats had no problem with Trump being investigated when he was a private citizen. Anyway, from what I have seen, the stuff Trump was concerned about happened when Biden was VP. Have you followed the story at all?

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.10  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

There is new evidence coming out soon looks like the shoe may drop and end up in Joe’s ass.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.4    3 weeks ago
Put your head in the sand if you like,

Judging from the fact that I am more informed about this than you are, perhaps it is you who has his head in the sand. The information is out there for anyone with the intellectual curiosity to find it. 

but this requires an examination of the Bidens. 

Why? 

I find it hypocritical that sycophants target 'the Biden's' while Trump's family is all over the world making bank...

If the unsubstantiated allegations against Biden and his son REQUIRE an examination then the overt actions by Trump's family do too. Chinese trademark clearances, Saudi Arabian Prince has Jared 'in my pocket', sudden billion dollar bailout of Jared's 666 property. The list goes on... 

If Democrats are just going stomp their feet and insist on "nothing to see here" that will look corrupt as hell and you'll be doing Trump a favor.

The Prosecutor General of Ukraine said there was nothing to see there...

I do think he should have communicated with the FBI over this.

Hell, Barr just admitted that Trump didn't even communicate with HIM about this. 

However, if the wrongdoing took place in Ukraine, as alleged, Ukrainian authorities would necessarily be involved.

The 'Ukrainian authorities' did an investigation into the Burisma AND it's owner and EXAONERATED them. So did the UK. Does there have to be more investigations than Benghazi before it's made clear that this is a political hit job? 

Is that the corrupt prosecutor who was fired for being corrupt? 

NO. He's Yuriy Lutsenko, the corrupt prosecutor that was desperate to keep his job and started saying a bunch of bullshit, which Giuliani and the Hill lapped up, after he realized that Zelensky was going to win the election in Ukraine.

First he said that there was no evidence that the Biden's did anything illegal

https://www.syracuse.com/us-news/2019/05/ukraine-refutes-trump-lawyers-allegations-against-joe-biden-son.html

Note: You might want to review Kelensky's comments in the presser with Trump yesterday, he said just about the same thing that Lutsenko said in May about not wanting the Ukraine mixed up in the US election.

Yet after that interview, he started to play Trump and Giuliani to get the US to help him keep his job. Kelensky replaced him in August. 

The irony is that both Lutsenko and Shorkin are now the 'officials' that Trump and his sycophants are parroting. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.12  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.9    3 weeks ago

I'm not sure there is a more loyal Trump supporter in America than you. 

Don't cry too much when Trump gets impeached, which is all but certain at this point. 

He is a sitting president who attempted to use the power of his office to get a foreign government to discredit his election opponent.  He can't do that. It is a high crime and misdemeanor. 

Do YOU follow the news? That is a better question. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.13  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.9    3 weeks ago
He is now, but I don't know why that should matter. Private citizens are investigated every day. Democrats had no problem with Trump being investigated when he was a private citizen. Anyway, from what I have seen, the stuff Trump was concerned about happened when Biden was VP. Have you followed the story at all?

Again, you desperately try to pretend that the US investigating a US citizen is that same as the US asking a foreign nation to investigate a US citizen. WHY? 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.14  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @4.1.10    3 weeks ago

Did you get that from your secret decoder ring or do you have a credible source you can share? 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.15  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @4.1.14    3 weeks ago

No I will not share you will have to wait till the documents are made available to the unwashed masses.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.16  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.12    3 weeks ago
I'm not sure there is a more loyal Trump supporter in America than you.

I'm not sure there is a more irrational Trump hater in America than you.

He is a sitting president who attempted to use the power of his office to get a foreign government to discredit his election opponent.

There is nothing about the upcoming election and his opponents in the conversation with the Ukranian president. The name "Biden" comes up in two successive sentences about Joe's son and the investigation into him.

The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

There is nothing in that about the election, discrediting an opponent, or anything like that. The name "Biden" appears nowhere else in the transcript.

The main thing that Trump asked Zelenskyy was to look into the Crowdstrike company which was involved in collecting data on Russian meddling in the previous election. That has nothing to do with Biden or the upcoming election.

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.13    3 weeks ago
He is a sitting president who attempted to use the power of his office to get a foreign government to discredit his election opponent.

Just a quick question: What election opponent do you think Trump wants Ukraine to investigate? Because I have read the transcript of the conversation, and nowhere in there do I see a request to do that. I do see a request to investigate a US company (Crowdstrike), but not a person. Here is a link to the transcript.

Just quote the part where Trump asks Zelenskyy to investigate an election opponent. If you mean the company, that's fine. But nowhere in there did he ask for an investigation into Joe Biden.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.17    3 weeks ago

Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.19  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.17    3 weeks ago

Note that I answered your question in exactly the way you asked me to. 

Now how about YOU answer some of the multiple questions I have asked you. 

You can start with the one in the comment you just replied to and work you way back to yesterday. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.20  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @4.1.18    3 weeks ago

Yes, I don't see what that has to do with the election. He's asking about Biden's son and the lack of prosecution. I don't see anything like "investigate my election opponent."

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.1.21  MrFrost  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.1.6    3 weeks ago

So just because Pelosi called for an impeachment inquiry, that doesn't necessarily mean there will be enough evidence to impeach (indict), correct?

To the best of my knowledge, yes, that's correct. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @4.1.20    3 weeks ago
Yes, I don't see what that has to do with the election. He's asking about Biden's son and the lack of prosecution. I don't see anything like "investigate my election opponent."

He asked about the prosecution of Biden's son AND to look into Biden's stopping the prosecution. 

BTW, it's pretty obvious that Trump and Giuliani think that an investigation into Biden's son would effect the election. Go review what Giuliani is spewing on Fox. Now he's claiming to be a hero!

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.2  bbl-1  replied to  Tacos! @4    4 weeks ago

Yeah, "Crooked Hillary, Low Energy Jeb, Lying Ted and of course the Horse Face comments among the many others" by the DJT.  Yes indeed.  "The enthusiasm of it all, right?"

There are just a lot people that are yearning to 'get a piece of the DJT' when the time is right.  Hell, there thousands upon thousands of folk in NJ and NY in the building industry and Casino industry

that are waiting for their just dues.  In short, the Trump is a marked man.  When his armor protection evaporates he will be naked. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
4.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  bbl-1 @4.2    4 weeks ago
There are just a lot people that are yearning to 'get a piece of the DJT' when the time is right.  Hell, there thousands upon thousands of folk in NJ and NY in the building industry and Casino industry

My son in law works in construction in DC, (co-owner of a company), and he has told me many stories about trump working with the mob to get building permits where other companies couldn't. This is not a big secret. I remember...man...must have been close to 25 or 30 years ago seeing him on the Regis and Kathy Lee Show and Regis asking trump how he can get building permits so easily and he flatly said, "you just have to know which palms to grease". I'll never forget it because until that point I thought he was a pretty stand up guy. Turns out he is just a crook and a liar. Personally, I think his run of luck has finally ran out. 

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  MrFrost @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

DJT is a liar, cheat and a fraud.  Same thing he's always been.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.3  pat wilson  replied to  bbl-1 @4.2.2    3 weeks ago

trump and gulianni belong behind barr's big fat ass in prison.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
4.2.4  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

Who do you think would be the top or the bottom?

Dammit, i can't believe you made me think of that Pat!   !$%*%$@*#!

 
 
 
MUVA
4.2.5  MUVA  replied to  pat wilson @4.2.3    3 weeks ago

No silly prisons are for Clinton’s.

 
 
 
pat wilson
4.2.6  pat wilson  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @4.2.4    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.7  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @4.2.5    3 weeks ago

Wtf is a silly prison?  Do the inmates wear funny hats and run around with clown noses?

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.8  Trout Giggles  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.7    3 weeks ago

<snicker>

In MUVA's defense, I think he types on a phone and I know I have problems using punctuation on a phone.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.2.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.2.7    3 weeks ago

No, Silly, Trix are for kids

is how i assume he intended it.

In this instance,

Dix R 4 lix, B hind Barr's DOJ, N even Barr is deserved to behind his namesake

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.2.10  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Trout Giggles @4.2.8    3 weeks ago

I know.  I am just having a little fun with him.  I really do like him even when we disagree.  Anyone who can type on a watch as small as they are has my respect.

 
 
 
freepress
5  freepress    3 weeks ago

Of course it's a crime and Trump just doesn't even care anymore that people know it openly. He expects to have lawyers get him out of this one; the same way they filed his bankruptcies, the way they paid off his mistresses, the way they filed his divorces, the way they filed NDA's against anyone who accepted a payoff when Trump knew he was losing, the way lawyers have gotten him out of every mess he was ever involved in. This one is different, he was willing to use taxpayer dollars to extort a foreign leader. That was just a bridge too far for some patriot who came forward.

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

Last week, I got pulled over on the way home from the store and I got a ticket for a burned out tail light. I am glad Rudy was my lawyer, he plead that broken tail light all the way down to first degree murder. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online



loki12
Krishna


39 visitors