Impeachment Hearing

  
Via:  gooseisgone  •  one month ago  •  308 comments

Impeachment Hearing
Diplomat says Trump FELT "wronged".

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


"Where was the impeachable offense in that call?" Rattcliffe said.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
gooseisgone
1  seeder  gooseisgone    one month ago

Testimony not going well for the Democrats.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  gooseisgone @1    one month ago

Not sure if you watched the same thing I did. I saw two very believable honest men testify that Trump and cohorts extorted the Ukraine to get them to at minimum announce publicly that Burisma and Biden were under investigation and to admit to Ukraine being involved somehow with the 2016 election hacking which we all know was committed by Russia, well anyone with access to more than half their brains anyway.

The sad attempts by Republicans to derail this were cringeworthy as they sycophantically threw out deflection after distraction, anything to shift the focus from the facts. I can't believe a single one of them actually believes in their lies and obfuscation, they're all just scared shitless right now of their foam at the mouth Trump supporting constituents. It's too late for them now to act like the educated ethical legislators they once claimed to be, that ship has sailed. They are now just desperate deck hands on the Trumptanic.

 
 
 
Ender
1.1.1  Ender  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    one month ago

Them asking about the Biden's and the whistle blower was pathetic.

The trumpers will never believe he did anything wrong.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.2  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1    one month ago
believable honest men testify that Trump and cohorts extorted

Please explain...…..when did this extortion take place, the President of Ukraine didn't know about it till after the fact,  The aid was sent without an investigation so tell me, what did they witness first hand? Don't tell me they heard it form someone else or they felt this or disagreed with that.  When did they witness Trump do anything.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.3  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.2    one month ago
Please explain...…..when did this extortion take place,

From even before the call. There was communication preparing Zelensky for the call and he was told that Trump wanted investigations. 

the President of Ukraine didn't know about it till after the fact, 

I presume that you are talking about the military aid. Cooper testified that the Ukrainians knew about the hold in EARLY August. 

The Ukrainians knew just about from day one that Trump was holding the WH meeting until a public statement was made by Zelensky. 

So that means from July through the middle of Sept. 

The aid was sent without an investigation so tell me, what did they witness first hand?

You refuse to review the transcripts so I have to wonder why you ask. 

Don't tell me they heard it form someone else or they felt this or disagreed with that. 

Why not? Trump's sycophants on the Committee seemed to think that what Trump heard from someone else and what Trump felt and what Trump disagreed with was pretty fucking relevant. 

When did they witness Trump do anything.

I suggest that you and your fellow travelers review the exception to hearsay laws. When a declarant refuses to testify or says they don't remember, hearsay is admissable. 

So if Trump and the rest of you don't want hearsay to be admissible, y'all are going to have to support the testimony of all of the first hand witnesses. Until then, it's a ridiculous argument. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
1.1.4  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @1.1.3    one month ago
There was communication preparing Zelensky for the call

Why didn't Zelinsky admit that when asked?????

You refuse to review the transcripts so I have to wonder why you ask

They "did not witness" Trump asking for an investigation, so why are your trying to point to the transcript.

 review the exception to hearsay laws

God fucking luck with that one.!!!!!!

 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.5  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.4    one month ago
Why didn't Zelinsky admit that when asked?????

Is this a demonstration of a lack of commonsense or a lack of imagination on behalf of the republicans on the committee? In the case of President Zelinsky:

original

credit Giphy.com

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1.6  WallyW  replied to  Ender @1.1.1    4 weeks ago
The trumpers will never believe he did anything wrong.

He didn't do anything wrong.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.7  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @1.1.4    4 weeks ago
Why didn't Zelinsky admit that when asked?????

When was he asked that question? Link? 

BTW, since you claim to have watched the hearing, do you have an argument against the testimony of the witnesses about that question? 

They "did not witness" Trump asking for an investigation, so why are your trying to point to the transcript. God fucking luck with that one.!!!!!!

How do you know, you haven't read them. /s

So you insist on siting the hearsay law but want to ignore the hearsay law. Got ya. 

 
 
 
CB
1.1.8  CB   replied to  WallyW @1.1.6    4 weeks ago

Trump did not follow the Rule of Law. Does the Rule of Law mean anything to Republicans? (Besides using it to rap democrats over the head with it?)

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.9  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  CB @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Does the Rule of Law mean anything to Republicans?

It matters about as much as the debt, deficit, honesty and morality does to them. When they're not in power all they can do is scream and rage at liberals and progressives, whining about the law, the debt, the deficit, the dishonesty and immorality. Then they get elected and they double the deficit, increase the debt by over $3 trillion in just 3 years, elected a man who literally said he grabs women by the pussy and doesn't "even wait" for consent, has cheated on all three of his wives, lied over 13,000 times since taking office, paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep his porn star mistresses quiet during the campaign, and is now actively extorting a foreign government in an effort to sabotage a political rival in an upcoming election, yet very few Republicans are willing to stand up to the lawless bully now running their party. So it's pretty safe to say most Trumps supporters don't give a shit about the law, they care only for themselves.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.10  r.t..b...  replied to  CB @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Trump did not follow the Rule of Law.

Simple in definition, nearly impossible to address in the cacophony of deflection, blame and ignorance that has become commonplace. The outcome is sadly predetermined as not a single mind will be influenced by the ongoing investigation. The lines have been drawn, the dysfunction will continue, and we'll continue the downward spiral as the powers become even more slanted toward the executive branch. That the danger inherent in such a shift is summarily dismissed as irrelevant by the current party in power is the saddest indictment of all.

 
 
 
katrix
1.1.11  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.9    4 weeks ago
So it's pretty safe to say most Trumps supporters don't give a shit about the law, they care only for themselves

Or the country, sadly. Or the truth.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.1.12  Raven Wing  replied to  CB @1.1.8    4 weeks ago
Does the Rule of Law mean anything to Republicans?

Only in so far as to see how much of it they can break and call it good. However, that does not include ALL Republicans. IMO, there are more who do respect the rule of law than don't. It is only that we seem to see the ones who don't more than those who do.

The ones we see the most are the radical, rabid and white supremacists who relish disrespecting the law, including the biggest example that sits in the Oval office of the WH, and encourages his like law breakers to follow his lead. 

It is a shame that the Republicans who are not in that group don't stand up and be accounted for. And it is also a shame that the Republicans here are among the rabid Trump supporters who cheer and encourage his disrespect of our laws by denying that he does.

JMOO

 
 
 
CB
1.1.13  CB   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.9    4 weeks ago

I wholeheartedly agree. Time to start rubbing their faces in their stupe. Going forward: I will spend less time attempting to make matters clear to those who double-down. If cuckoo is what they want-its what they will get up to their eyelids.

 
 
 
CB
1.1.14  CB   replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.10    4 weeks ago

I can not concede anything to Donald or his donalders. I say make that ass work hard for every damn victory it gets. Don't sit on the sidelines! It is what they want you to do. Give up; give out:give over. I will not. If I get worn-out it will be because I have worn them out too. Else, take a breather. And get up and get back at it.

For the Donalders on NT, this silliness on display is well understood by me. I see you: As they dodge, lie, obfuscate, and fall silent in discussions (when truth would expose their weak position).

The democrats in the race for the office; in congress; simply need to be smart, strong, and fearless. Asses will 'roll' and 'break' from the stresses and strains, exerted, but I say - never give up!

Never! Take you vitamins and get back in the game! Never let 'em see you sweat!

 
 
 
CB
1.1.15  CB   replied to  Raven Wing @1.1.12    4 weeks ago

It is shamefully sad to discover that this man, Donald J. Trump is "the One" republicans and conservatives have been waiting for to lead their party. This?!

A blunt-force renegade who self-deals, mistakes winning at all cost as well—winning, compulsively lies, forbids others under his sway from ever telling the truth, and who would not ingest truth if it sat on his face! This!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  gooseisgone @1    one month ago
Testimony not going well for the Democrats.

It's going swimmingly well for both sides.  It's a massive exercise in advanced confirmation bias, whipping the respective bases into matching frenzies.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.2.1  r.t..b...  replied to  Jack_TX @1.2    4 weeks ago
It's going swimmingly well for both sides.

...flailing in the fetid pool of partisanship, more than willing to pull the other down in their enfeebled efforts at self-preservation. If they would just stand up, they would realize they are drowning in shallow water. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  r.t..b... @1.2.1    4 weeks ago
If they would just stand up, they would realize they are drowning in shallow water.

Sadly, most Republicans have proved over the last three years that they completely lack any backbone, so standing for something would be virtually impossible. It's why they fall for Trumps lies so easily.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.2    4 weeks ago

The Democrat sheeple baaaaainnnngggg loudly impeach for the last 3 1/2 years see Russians everywhere; believe every lie that has been spoon fed to them by the Democrats and media; and won't call for an investigation on Biden for Quid pro Quo and extortion after he brags about it claiming he had the full support of Obama. 

Take care of your own damn house first!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.3    4 weeks ago
and won't call for an investigation on Biden for Quid pro Quo and extortion after he brags about it claiming he had the full support of Obama.

Considering there is ZERO evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden, why should anyone open an investigation? You have to have something tangible, like a phone call where one party is asking for a personal "favor though" before giving the other party something they want, like javelin missiles and the rest of the congressionally approved military funding that was being held back. All Republicans have on Biden is he was VP when his son worked for a oil and gas prospecting company in Ukraine. There has been zero evidence of any crime committed by Joe Biden, Hunter Biden or Burisma, merely conjecture by Republicans because Hunter was paid an average oil and gas prospector pay check. Did Burisma hire him hoping to curry favor with Joe Biden? Perhaps, companies hire people all the time that have political connections and use them to lobby their connections all the time, there is nothing illegal about it, it's why there is such a revolving door between the legislature and corporate America.

The Obama administration, through the proper channels, did withhold aide in an effort to root out the blatant corruption in Ukraine. This is very different than holding back aide in an effort to further corruption by getting a foreign government to announce they were opening an investigation into a political rival. The two things are night and day different, anyone who can't see that needs their eye's and perhaps the brain they're attached to checked.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.4    4 weeks ago
Considering there is ZERO evidence of any wrongdoing by Biden

Zero isn't accurate. We have his own words. All you need is the willingness to say that his admitted actions might have been improper. That's how we got around to impeaching Trump. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Biden.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.6  CB   replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.3    4 weeks ago

Oh look Ronin2 has conservative talking points; Get the sheeple of your own eyes first!

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
Zero isn't accurate. We have his own words. All you need is the willingness to say that his admitted actions might have been improper. That's how we got around to impeaching Trump. If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for Biden.

Right, ALL you need is to make up shit. 

Unless you claim that Kent LIED to Congress of course. Until you can cite ONE fucking iota of evidence that you're basing your 'willingness' on, it's just deflection. 

One has to be intellectually bankrupt to advocate for that bullshit. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.8  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Ronin2 @1.2.3    4 weeks ago

Oh bullshit!

If there was any evidence of Biden wrongdoing, then the GOP controlled house would have been hammering it since before they lost control in 2018.  

Stop the deflection from the matter at hand, and that is to determine if the current sitting president is in violation of his oath of office, the constitution, and obstructing justice.

I find it despicable that the GOP and it's enablers are so willing to allow this president and administration trample "at will" on the constitution, and what America stands for. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.9  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.8    4 weeks ago

Yea everyone gets a seat on the board of Directors of a energy company  when their father is vice president getting paid  more than the usual amount. 

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.10  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @1.2.9    4 weeks ago

Still can't put down your Fox News generated talking points long enought to address the corruption that currently infects the WH can you MUVA.

Do I need to remind you that you took an oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?  

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.11  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @1.2.10    4 weeks ago

So you are saying I isn’t unusual for a person to fly on Air Force two and get money everywhere they land.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.12  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.5    4 weeks ago
Zero isn't accurate. We have his own words.

Please link to where any Biden is admitting wrongdoing or a crime. I heard Hunters statement that taking the job was a bad idea, is that the quote you're referencing?

“In retrospect, look, I think that it was poor judgment on my part,” - Hunter Biden

I think "poor judgement" is a far cry from any sort of admission of a crime. Saying basically that, now in hindsight, his accepting a job with an oil company might reflect badly on his father is not admitting that there was any sort of wrongdoing.

If anyone here has actual evidence that either Biden broke the law or did anything illicit, please, get that evidence to the justice department, I'm sure Mr. Barr and Donald Trump would be ecstatic with the news considering they are currently holding an empty bag they've blown their hot air into and trying to convince Trumps rabid base it's chock full of evidence. How anyone keeps believing them when we all know they would let that cat out of the bag if there really was one in there is quite stunning. The fact that they were begging Ukraine to at least publicly announce an investigation is proof they have nothing on the Biden's and didn't actually expect them to find anything. If they were truly concerned with rooting out corruption, forcing the Ukrainian President to go before cameras and publicly proclaim an investigation would have done nothing to further that end, could actually show their hand to those supposedly under suspicion, but would give ammunition to the Trump 2020 campaign to use against the Democrat candidate that even early Fox News polls showed beating Trump by double digits. How those on the right continue to ignore the obvious facts is, as Trump himself said when pointing out how lawless or perhaps stupid his followers were that they would ignore him shooting someone on 5th Ave, "It's like, incredible".

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.12    4 weeks ago
Please link to where any Biden is admitting wrongdoing or a crime

That's a waste. What I would do is point to Biden admitting to something I think is wrong and potentially a crime. Then you would say it wasn't wrong and it wasn't a crime. We're playing the same game with Trump. Neither one of them is going to say "I committed a crime."

I think "poor judgement" is a far cry from any sort of admission of a crime.

But is a kind of admission of wrongdoing, isn't it. After all, if it's not wrong, why would it be poor judgment to do it?

get that evidence to the justice department

What if some of that evidence only exists in Ukraine and we need the cooperation of the Ukrainian government to get at it? Maybe we should have our president ask theirs for a favor.

And there we are. Full circle.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.14  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.13    4 weeks ago
What if some of that evidence only exists in Ukraine and we need the cooperation of the Ukrainian government to get at it? Maybe we should have our president ask theirs for a favor.

Maybe, "we" could break the stalemate by simply following the path in our Rule of Law. I am not above the Rule of Law. You are not above the Rule of Law. And neither is the President above the Rule of Law. If President Donald Trump is too preoccupied with matters that won't let him glean how to stay aligned with the laws of this country, maybe, no he should have stayed out of the running for the office. I suppose republicans had candidates keen on, "the how tos and how comes of the rule of law."

But, conservatives did not want those candidates. You guys wanted the "Riot." The "bombastic bomb-thrower." The "Dirtiest Player in the Game." The "Mr. Don't Even Bother To Pay Me" (though the Rule of Law demands his checks to be cut in his name). 

A president who can't even abide the laws of his own country is a sad creature.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.2.15  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.13    4 weeks ago
But is a kind of admission of wrongdoing, isn't it. After all, if it's not wrong, why would it be poor judgment to do it?

It could be "poor judgement" to let someone you don't know very well borrow a DVD. Is that a crime? Of course not, you just realize later that it was't all that wise because you may never see your four hour directors cut of "Dune" again.

And no, saying "poor judgement" is not an admission of wrongdoing. It's an admission that you likely would have done things differently if given the chance.

"What if some of that evidence only exists in Ukraine"

What if it exists on the moon? Do we plan a moon mission to find out even though there is no evidence of it actually existing? Just fucking Russian pieces of shit telling you its there isn't a reasonable reason to force a foreign country to start an investigation. The only "whistle blower" complaining of any supposed Biden crime was Vladimir Putin, but apparently we know which complaint dishonest Donald is concerned about. I've no doubt the sad piece of crap we have parading around pretending to be President blew Putin's whistle as soon as Putin showed it to him.

"And there we are. Full circle."

Full circle, Putin gets what he wants, the US gets screwed and our foreign service department and ambassadors get thrown under the bus and Trump gets to try and smear a political opponent. I'm not sure if that really qualifies as "full circle" but I'll admit, Trump is definitely giving Putin a reach around.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.14    4 weeks ago
You guys

I am not in your "you guys" group no matter how badly you want me to be.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.17  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.15    4 weeks ago
What if it exists on the moon? Do we plan a moon mission to find out even though there is no evidence of it actually existing?

Golly that's dumb.

Just fucking Russian pieces of shit telling you its there isn't a reasonable reason to force a foreign country to start an investigation.

Then you shouldn't think it would be reasonable for members of Congress, our justice agencies, and the news media to take action based on some Russian piece of shit dossier. Yet they all did.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.2.15    4 weeks ago
your four hour directors cut of "Dune"

speaking of poor judgment

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.2.19  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @1.2.11    4 weeks ago

Got proof of your bullshit statement.....?

 
 
 
CB
1.2.20  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.16    4 weeks ago

Oh yes, you wanted "this cat"! And he is getting his 'fur" pulled out in clumps and singles, because he does not know how to lead a nation. He thought he could come in and be "Big Boss Man." That he could ignore centuries and decades of dutiful laws laboriously established by many legendary minds—all to suit his self-interests and that of his donalder-friends.

So I don't have to WANT you to be part of anything. That is not the issue any longer. You ARE a part of that- *snap!* You can give it any classification you wish.

 
 
 
Tacos!
1.2.21  Tacos!  replied to  CB @1.2.20    4 weeks ago
Oh yes, you wanted "this cat"!

It's really pathetic the way you need to invent enemies to battle. I am not the person you say I am no matter how many times you say it. Guess where you can shove your fantasies.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.22  CB   replied to  Tacos! @1.2.21    4 weeks ago
Guess where you can shove your fantasies.

I can't fashion a thought about, give please. If you must know, moi has never been good at taking a hint.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @1.2.9    4 weeks ago

Ivanka and Jarod got positions for no other reason than daddy and daddy in law is POTUS.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.24  CB   replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.23    4 weeks ago

Hi Paula! These are not pink-foot babies we are conversing with. They are batting noise back and forth, because Trump has only supplied them with dregs to go out and share. We're all old enough to recognize stupid crap x2 in an instance. Muva, is no exception.

More to the point: As commonsense will assure everyone there is no benefit to being the son of a this or that with money, influence, and power if you can't benefit from it. From the Tyler Perry play (1999), "I Can Do Bad All By Myself" —well, Muva -and other pretenders to not understanding- can follow the drift of the title. The only question that matters is was the benefit achieved legally. Other than that, all those loud-mouths standing on the rooftops shouting are accomplishing is letting the world know that Biden's son "got paid."

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2.25  KDMichigan  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.2.23    4 weeks ago
vanka and Jarod got positions for no other reason than daddy and daddy in law is POTUS.

Ah yes them unpaid positions for doing more than Hunter Biden has ever done. Christ he is so pathetic he can't even get his own piece of ass, he has to screw his dead brothers widow.

 
 
 
CB
1.2.26  CB   replied to  KDMichigan @1.2.25    4 weeks ago

So much for a lack of good taste. That comment is the tar pits. Incidentally, what makes you feel that Ivanka and Jarrett have four years of their best years of their lives to give to unpaid service to anybody? Does that sound business savvy to you? Afterall, "daddy" is president and its his project. They need (and are) making money sufficient to the cause: You betcha!

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  gooseisgone @1    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Kathleen
1.3.1  Kathleen  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3    4 weeks ago

That’s cute..

 
 
 
Heartland American
1.4  Heartland American  replied to  gooseisgone @1    4 weeks ago

Is that what they call the idiotic stupidity democrats in the House have been wasting our and their time on? 

 
 
 
MUVA
2  MUVA    one month ago

I heard from my brothers best friends sisters mother that this whole fake ass star chamber kangaroo court will lead to nothing.I listen on c span what a joke.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
2.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  MUVA @2    one month ago
I heard from my brothers best friends sisters mother 

and your forgot.........she read it on a bathroom stall.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3  Kathleen    one month ago

Jim Jordan summed it up quite nicely.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @3    one month ago

Jim Jordan is a far right nut job. 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1    one month ago

This is not about me, it’s about the impeachment hearing today. 

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1.2  WallyW  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.1    one month ago

Jim Jordan summed it up quite nicely.

Although I didn't watch, Jim Jordan speaks the truth

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  WallyW @3.1.2    one month ago

He pretty much tells it like it is, and I like that. I never even heard of him until this impeachment. I thought he was spot on. I agree that this is all a waste of time.

 
 
 
Ender
3.1.4  Ender  replied to  Kathleen @3.1.3    one month ago

He doesn't tell it like it is when he can turn a blind eye to sexual abuse continuing.

He shouldn't have the position he does.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @3    one month ago

Kathleen, would you like to debate me about Ukraine? Let's go. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.2.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago
debate me about Ukraine? Let's go

When did you become an expert on Ukraine, what.....have you been listing to Rachel every night.

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.1    one month ago

It’s all about hearsay. I did enjoy watching it though...

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.3  MUVA  replied to  Kathleen @3.2.2    one month ago

It’s not even hearsay it is hearsay of hearsay it has more degrees of separation than Kevin bacon.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.4  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago

What exactly are you going to debate hearsay of hearsay,

 
 
 
CB
3.2.5  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.1    one month ago

Where oh where did JR say he is an expert on Ukraine? He asked for a debate (of some kind). TTM'Goose, you can debate me. Here is my first question:

  1. What reason can you give that President Trump has not released to an Impeachment Hearing Committee the actual call record and not just a summary of his conversations with the new Ukraine President?

First answer. If it is substantially on point, it will be your turn to ask me a question about today's Impeachment Hearing!

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.2.6  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  MUVA @3.2.3    one month ago
It’s not even hearsay it is hearsay of hearsay

Exactly!!! the USA Today headline "Diplomat says Trump FELT" how in the hell does he know how Trump felt. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    one month ago
would you like to debate me about Ukraine? Let's go.

If only you had started with that. Instead, you decided to make it about Kathleen with your first comment. Now, supposedly, you want to talk about Ukraine.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.2.8  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @3.2.5    one month ago
Where oh where did JR say he is an expert on Ukraine

How about this:

would you like to debate me about Ukraine?

Oh I don't know.......I assumed John has a fair amount of knowledge to be challenging people or are you telling me John doesn't know shit about Ukraine.

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.2.9  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @3.2.5    one month ago
not just a summary of his conversations

I have not heard the call, maybe they were dropping F bombs every other word.  Tell me of someone who was listening in on the call said the summary left out the part where Trump says he's withholding aid.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.10  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.8    one month ago

Okay, let's follow your train of thought (as it stands): If I debate you on Ukraine as it relates to this impeachment hearing, will it make you and me Ukraine experts by the end of it?

Oh, what I do know is me (A) asking to debate you (B) stands far and distinct from including John.

 
 
 
CB
3.2.12  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.9    one month ago
Tell me of someone who was listening in on the call said the summary left out the part where Trump says he's withholding aid.

You failed an attempt to answer the question. So it remains open:

  1. What reason can you give that President Trump has not released to an Impeachment Hearing Committee the actual call record and not just a summary of his conversations with the new Ukraine President?
 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.13  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.7    one month ago

She spends a lot of time being innocent  with the attitude that people who oppose Trump are just troublemakers who are picking on Donald Trump for no or little reason. 

There are  a number of people here that make that sort of argument. 

Trump is in trouble because he is a sucker for conspiracy garbage.

Does Kathleen know that?  Do you? 

The main thing wrong with all this impeachment stuff is that they have to observe niceties.  I would rather see reporters shout to Trump  -

"Why do you lie so much?"   After having that happen a hundred times maybe it would become a thing. 

Americans are too used to bamboozling, something we see on NT , and other forums like this, 24/7. 

If Trump is innocent, why did he demand that the Ukrainian president announce this 'investigation' on CNN ? 

Why did he tell everyone to co-ordinate with Giuliani, who has admitted that he was there only to advance the interests of his "client"?  His client was Trump, NOT America. 

There is no doubt Trump is guilty. None.  There is a legitimate question as to what should be done about it. There is no question about what happened. 

The more Trump stays in office, the more a certain type of American is becoming inured to corruption and constant lying.  I could point out multiple such people on this site right now.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.14  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.7    one month ago
Now, supposedly, you want to talk about Ukraine.

You are the biggest excuse maker for Trump on this site.  I should have remembered that when I was considering Kathleen.  At least people who openly support Trump no matter what are occasionally totally upfront about it. Then there are those who support him 99.9% of the time but claim to be "objective". It is completely laughable. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.15  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    one month ago
Trump is in trouble because he is a sucker for conspiracy garbage.

I actually agree with that. I don't imagine that will mar my reputation as the biggest Trump defender on the site, eh?

If Trump is innocent, why did he demand that the Ukrainian president announce this 'investigation' on CNN ?

Even if that were true, who cares? And if he did, it wasn't much of a demand because it didn't happen.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.16  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.14    one month ago

Is that your way of asking me to debate Ukraine?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.2.17  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @3.2.12    one month ago

Can your read? Here I'll break it down.

I have not heard the call

That means I have no idea of what or why the call wasn't released, I did speculate:

maybe they were dropping F bombs every other word

So I have answered your question, you have not answered mine, tell someone who heard the call and disputes the summary.  You can make it up the same way I did but, don't try and put me on the spot when you have nothing yourself.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.18  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.15    one month ago

I can't respond to you with truth because when I do the moderators delete it.  Everyone on NT is free to bamboozle as much as they like. That is the reality of it, which kinds of ruins honest discussions. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.2.19  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.18    one month ago
I can't respond to you with truth because when I do the moderators delete it.

If by "truth" you mean personal attacks, then yeah, I get that. You have been advised many times to discuss the topic and not attack people.

ruins honest discussions

When I see you start one, I will be amazed because it will be the first time I have seen it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.20  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @3.2.19    one month ago

Your idea of an honest discussion is to say there is nothing wrong with the president of the United States asking the president of a foreign country to investigate one of the U.S. president's election opponents.  I guess you have a right to that ridiculous opinion, but others should have the right to tell you the truth about your opinion, and we really don't. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.2.21  Kathleen  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.13    one month ago

Like always, we all have our own opinions. There are too many people that are set in their ways to make any debate worthwhile. So I just state what I think and that’s that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.22  JohnRussell  replied to  Kathleen @3.2.21    one month ago

Yes, you think it is fine for the president of the United States to ask the government of another country to investigate Americans based on ridiculous conspiracy theories.  We understand. 

 
 
 
CB
3.2.23  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.17    one month ago

What kind of trickery is this? If you don't know why Pres. Trump has not released the call, then how do you plan to defend a summary? Generally, the smart "bee" would write back stating a greater need for context, that is, ask for the whole transcript (or what is archived as it). Otherwise, it is you who are shooting 'blanks.' The Intelligence Committee asked for it from the Administration and have been blocked from getting the document by the Stonewaller-In-Chief. That is, without democrats wasting excessive and expensive amount of time in Court.

Republicans, like straight-laced "lieutenants" go out and publicly try to defend a partial transcript as if it is everything. It's pathetic.

"F-bombs"?  "F—???  ???? No comment.

The summary on its face says it a summary with ellipses. You may, or may not be aware, that you can hide "Air Force 1" inside a set of ellipses! The summary is partially unacceptable for these hearings, but for all the committee is allowed to get with a timely court order.

My question:

  1. Why did Trump's staff put this specific Ukrainian telephone call on a Washington secret security server not routinely used for low-level communications between leaders? After all, if the aforementioned summary of the call is thoroughly complete and it is public - why the need for such document protection?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    4 weeks ago
'Kathleen, would you like to debate me about Ukraine? Let's go.'

jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.25  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

Hearsay?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
3.2.26  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2.18    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.27  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.25    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.28  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @3.2.26    4 weeks ago
[deleted]

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.2.29  dennis smith  replied to  gooseisgone @3.2.6    4 weeks ago

If brains was gasoline some dems here couldn't power a minibike around a pinhead regarding what is hearsay and what is not.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Kathleen @3    one month ago
Republicans simply raked truths (lacking documents/testimonies; withheld witnesses; presidential obstructions) into a shallow grave.

His cross was excellent.

 
 
 
CB
3.3.1  CB   replied to  Tacos! @3.3    one month ago

Tacos! 'Er, oops!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @3.3    one month ago
His cross was excellent.

If you're talking about Jordan, that's laughable. 

Republicans simply raked truths (lacking documents/testimonies; withheld witnesses; presidential obstructions) into a shallow grave.

The only 'documents/testimonies; withheld witnesses' the Republicans are lacking are being withheld by Trump, which yes, is obstruction of Congress.

 
 
 
CB
3.3.3  CB   replied to  Dulay @3.3.2    one month ago

Friend Dulay, that is a partial statement from me @4.1. A bit of 'cross-talk' occurred involving Tacos!

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3    one month ago

Jim Jordan is a smarmy hack. 

Jordan's only major point was C happened, E happened and J happened and Trump didn't get his Z so no harm no foul.  He's desperate for you not to be interested in A,B,D,F,G,H.I and on and on. He's also desperate for you to ignore is the fact that Trump is refusing to allow many of those with first hand knowledge to testify. 

Remember the names of the people that Taylor talked about. Many of them, Vindman, Morrison, Sondland and Volker will be testifying next week. The GOP is counting on you being unable or unwilling to invest the time it takes to connect the dots. 

 
 
 
Ender
3.4.1  Ender  replied to  Dulay @3.4    one month ago

Exactly. His whole summary was it never ended up happening so no big deal.

Maybe others should use that defence. So and so was planning on blowing up a building but he didn't actual do it because he got caught. No harm no foul...

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.4.2  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.4    one month ago
The GOP is counting on you being unable or unwilling to invest the time it takes to connect the dots

Dulay you probably never played sports, you don't bring your First Team in with 3:00 minutes left in the game when your down 42-0.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.3  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @3.4.2    one month ago
Dulay you probably never played sports,

Wrong again. 

you don't bring your First Team in with 3:00 minutes left in the game when your down 42-0.

This isn't a fucking game goose. These are hearings to find and document facts. The two witnesses today are subject experts on the Ukraine and both are serving in the US State Dept. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.4.4  Kathleen  replied to  Dulay @3.4    one month ago

We had too much of an issue with each other on another thread. Sorry, I think we should let this rest. Good evening.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.5  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.4.4    one month ago

You are free to comment as you wish. 

I will continue to reply to your comments when I wish. 

 
 
 
gooseisgone
3.4.6  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  Dulay @3.4.3    one month ago
This isn't a fucking game goose

It appears to be the same game as the Mueller Report which was a 42-0 loss for the Democrats, why does anyone Democrat or Republican want to invest the time to watch a bunch of people say they heard this from someone else or they felt it wasn't right.

 
 
 
Ender
3.4.7  Ender  replied to  gooseisgone @3.4.6    one month ago

If I heard someone say they are planning a political assassination I should just discount it? After all, it is just hearsay.

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.4.8  Texan1211  replied to  Kathleen @3.4.4    one month ago

Some folks can never let anything just rest.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.9  Dulay  replied to  gooseisgone @3.4.6    one month ago
It appears to be the same game as the Mueller Report which was a 42-0 loss for the Democrats,

The inaction after the Mueller Report is a bigger loss for the country. 

why does anyone Democrat or Republican want to invest the time to watch a bunch of people say they heard this from someone else or they felt it wasn't right.

Sometimes, in order to be a good citizen, one has to embrace the suck.

That's what I did when I invested the time to read much of what I have already cited to you including ALL of the deposition transcripts. 

I spent the day listening to the hearing while I worked. I got a whole room stripped of 30 year old wallpaper and getting ready to paint. One can still be productive while listening. 

 
 
 
CB
3.4.10  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @3.4.6    one month ago

Because it an impeachment hearing, 'Goose. You can consider it collateral, circumstantial, and corroborated witness testimony under oath, if you wish. Impeachment will study the statements and make a political decision to keep or dispel the president. It is an approved method given by our founders. Impeachment is designed to compel reasonable people who can look at facts and reach a consensus—majority one way or the other.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.4.11  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.8    4 weeks ago
'Some folks can never let anything just rest.'

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
WallyW
3.4.12  WallyW  replied to  CB @3.4.10    4 weeks ago

No impeachable facts have emerged

 
 
 
MUVA
3.4.13  MUVA  replied to  WallyW @3.4.12    4 weeks ago

We did get more third hand info.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.4.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  WallyW @3.4.12    4 weeks ago
No impeachable facts have emerged

Neither have they shown what law(s) may have been broken. Heard on a local radio show this morning someone calling this "Schiff's Whiff". Lost my coffee

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
3.4.15  Kathleen  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.4.14    4 weeks ago

A court of law would throw it out. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.16  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @3.4.15    4 weeks ago

If the Congress had the power of a court of law, Perry, Mulvaney, Bolton, Kupperman, Brechbuhl, Duffy, Vought, Pompeo and Giuliani would either have been deposed or have a warrant out for them. 

Neither you nor the WH can have it both ways. 

 
 
 
CB
3.4.17  CB   replied to  WallyW @3.4.12    4 weeks ago

Define "impeachable." Don't JUST share talking points.

 
 
 
CB
3.4.18  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.4.14    4 weeks ago

Yes (dryly). Name-calling is a republican-conservative thing these days. Okay Jim, what is an impeachable offense and can republican congressmen and women know it if it walked up and stop short of introducing itself? (Hint: President Donald Trump 'flattened' a federal election law against receiving information about and against a fellow campaigner in the U.S.)

Just Jim NC TttH do let us know you believe in the citizenry following the laws of the United States. Go ahead, please.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.4.19  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.4.14    4 weeks ago

Well that makes 5 of you that are still too uninformed to know that there need not be a 'crime' for Trump to be Impeached. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
3.4.20  Raven Wing  replied to  Texan1211 @3.4.8    4 weeks ago
Some folks can never let anything just rest.

Pot......Kettle

 
 
 
dennis smith
3.4.21  dennis smith  replied to  gooseisgone @3.4.6    4 weeks ago

Some are unable to understand an analogy.

 
 
 
Sunshine
4  Sunshine    one month ago

Embarrassing for the Democrats...just like the Mueller and the Kavanaugh hearings.

 
 
 
CB
4.1  CB   replied to  Sunshine @4    one month ago

The Mueller Hearings were not embarrassing for the Democrats. Republicans simply raked truths (lacking documents/testimonies; withheld witnesses; presidential obstructions) into a shallow grave. You will rue the day that truth 'rises up' to speak on its on behalf!

 
 
 
Tacos!
4.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  CB @4.1    one month ago
The Mueller Hearings were not embarrassing for the Democrats.

Yeah they were. If they weren't, every single Democrat running for office would be crowing about how it drove them to start impeachment hearings. But that didn't happen, did it? A report just like it resulted in the immediate impeachment of Bill Clinton. This time, it was like a balloon deflating.

Instead, we have impeachment hearings because . . . Ukraine! Now that - after two plus years of bullshit Russia conspiracy theories - is a pretty poor substitute.

Republicans simply raked truths (lacking documents/testimonies; withheld witnesses; presidential obstructions) into a shallow grave.

Republicans don't have that power. The power lies with Democrats. Even they chose not to seek impeachment over Russian collusion. That's how you know they're embarrassed.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.2  CB   replied to  Tacos! @4.1.1    one month ago
If they weren't, every single Democrat running for office would be crowing about how it drove them to start impeachment hearings.But that didn't happen, did it? A report just like it resulted in the immediate impeachment of Bill Clinton.

Okay, come for me. Let's rock and roll! (Smile.)

Democrats are 'postponed' in their investigations in the court system due to the brilliance of a practiced Liar-In-Chief who stiff-armed the Special Counsel through use of obfuscation, hiding between a DOD memorandum (cowardice), warning off testimonies, and outright hiding and destruction of factual documents. Postponements end with a "day in Court," nevertheless. Justice delayed is not justice denied.

There is an important distinction between an Independent Counsel (Starr) and a Special Counsel (Mueller). Lastly, Bill Clinton did not have either the luxury, inclination, or personal constitution to deny himself from giving a proper and truthful deposition to Ken Starr.

Donald Trump weakly delivered "paper" answers to his Special Counsel, and those answers were considered insufficient in the official report. However, the Special Counsel opted to move forward without any further obfuscation from Donald J. Trump!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @4.1.2    one month ago

practiced Liar-In-Chief who stiff-armed the Special Counsel through use of obfuscation, hiding between a DOD memorandum (cowardice), warning off testimonies, and outright hiding and destruction of factual document

None of that happened. You should read the mueller report.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago

Trump lied to Mueller, in writing, about his personal knowledge of Wikileaks releases. 

Sean, is Donald Trump an embarrassment to the United States of America, yes or no? 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    one month ago

Why wasn't he charged with perjury for lying under oath? Did mueller miss that?

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.6  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    one month ago

Oh that's right, you and your fellow travelers only recognize when Democrats say 'I don't know/don't recall' 

Almost every single written answer from Trump equivocated by starting with 'To the best of my recollection'...

 
 
 
CB
4.1.7  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one month ago

Let's start here. Have you read the Mueller Report? Because, we can do this!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @4.1.7    one month ago

Yes, you obviously haven’t.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.9  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.5    one month ago

Because a DOJ memo makes charging a sitting president with a crime of little immediate value; the correct remedy is IMPEACHMENT.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.10  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.8    one month ago

Don't doublespeak. Have you read the Mueller Report?

 
 
 
CB
4.1.11  CB   replied to  Dulay @4.1.6    one month ago

Yeah boy!

  • If Trump is one thing and one thing only its lawyered up to the gills. (You can always fit in just one more indefinitely with a good-grade of lube.)
  • If Trump is good at one thing and good at one thing only its knowing how to pick near perfect fall-guys. Republicans contort themselves and continue to "take one for the Trumpster" every time! Disturbingly amazing!
 
 
 
WallyW
4.1.12  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

NO!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.1.13  Sean Treacy  replied to  CB @4.1.9    4 weeks ago

Here's the thing. Mueller didn't allege he committed perjury. You made that up. So there's no reason to rationalize why Mueller didn't charge him with a crime Mueller didn't think he committed. 

 
 
 
CB
4.1.14  CB   replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.13    4 weeks ago

I'm bringing out my megaphone: Have you read the Mueller Report?

 
 
 
It Is ME
5  It Is ME    one month ago

Democrats really fucked up in letting this go to the public realm of "As-Seen-On-TV" !

They sound more idiotic than they did in "Private".

All "Schifty" could be was a "Smirky wide eyed Smiley Smurf", and he then moves on to his next "Cooperating Idiot" House member !

"Castro (D)" was Great in this "Open Mic" Involvement! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

His bestest of all question was ….. "Is "Murder" Illegal". jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
CB
5.1  CB   replied to  It Is ME @5    one month ago

Rolls eyes. How did the Democrats sound in private?  Take your time explaining.

 
 
 
 
CB
5.1.2  CB   replied to  It Is ME @5.1.1    4 weeks ago

I have no clue what you are getting at here. Mostly, it seems a waste of time and just a form of detraction. So have at it . . . go hunt!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
6  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

Did you hear Taylor talk about his own quid pro quo? Something to the tune of "You're going to need bi-partisan support for........................"

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    one month ago

The Great Bamboozlement is underway on Newstalkers. 

Rudy Giuliani SAID on twitter, that his efforts in Ukraine were on behalf of his CLIENT. 

I'll give you a hint. His client was not the United States of America.  The effort of the unofficial "diplomacy" in Ukraine was to get dirt on Trump's election opponent.  Trump not only knew about it, he was behind it. It is an abuse of power, an abuse of his office, and he should resign immediately. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
The Great Bamboozlement is underway....

…...In these hearings !

Wonder when "Schifty" is gonna release his "Unrefutably" IMPEACHABLE Evidence he's had since 2017. jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

So far....all he's given is a "smiley smurf" barf PARODY !

 
 
 
gooseisgone
7.1.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  It Is ME @7.1    one month ago
Wonder when "Schifty" is gonna release his "Unrefutably" IMPEACHABLE Evidence

Right after he releases the Evidence of Russian Collusion.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7    one month ago
to get dirt on Trump's election opponent.  Trump not only knew about it, he was behind it. It is an abuse of power, an abuse of his office, and he should resign immediately. 

How so? Since when is anyone prohibited from seeking information about an election opponent?

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2.1  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    one month ago

Seeking evidence is a far cry from manufacturing fake evidence using blackmail.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @7.2.1    one month ago
Seeking evidence is a far cry from manufacturing evidence.

I agree. There's no evidence, though, that the presidents discussed manufacturing anything. Trump asked Zelensky to "look into it." He didn't ask him to make something up.

 
 
 
cjcold
7.2.3  cjcold  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.2    one month ago

Please tell me that you are not that naïve.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2    one month ago

He's the fucking president of the United States and a candidate running against Biden. He cannot use his present office and powers to have a foreign government investigate his election opponents. [Deleted]

Reading some of these comments,  I am embarrassed for this site. Perrie deserves better from her conservatives. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.5  Tacos!  replied to  cjcold @7.2.3    one month ago
Please tell me that you are not that naïve.

Because I rely on factual evidence to make judgments instead of partisan cynicism? Yes, I guess I am that naive.

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.4    one month ago
He cannot use his present office and powers to have a foreign government investigate his election opponents.

Why not? He asked the president of Ukraine to look into something the vice president did in his country. Why is that wrong? It's not like he asked another country to look into his private sex life or other personal business.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.6    one month ago

Imagine President Obama in 2012 going to Bolivia, let's say, and asking the president of Bolivia to investigate one of Mitt Romney's business dealings in that country and find corruption in it. Oh, and, Obama wants the president of Bolivia to announce the opening of this investigation on 60 Minutes. Oh, and, if the investigation is not announced Bolivia won't be getting a trade deal with the U.S. 

Imagine that, and what "conservatives" would have said about Obama. 

The constant bamboozling that Trumpsters engage in is making many Americans accustomed to lying and cheating, and it is potentially a disaster for our country if it isnt one already. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.8  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.7    one month ago
Imagine President Obama in 2012 going to Bolivia, let's say, and asking the president of Bolivia to investigate one of Mitt Romney's business dealings in that country and find corruption in it.

And . . . stop!

I just got through saying we aren't talking about personal business. We're talking about official public business conducted by the Vice President.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.9  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.8    one month ago

Please tell us about the U.S. Senate investigation that is ongoing into Joe Biden in Ukraine. That would be the proper venue for such an investigation. 

Oh yeah, there isnt one and hasnt been one, even though Biden's remarks about the Ukrainian prosecutor being fired took place 23 months ago, and Trump's party has controlled the Senate all that time. 

In January 2018, Biden disclosed that during a trip to Kyiv he privately warned Ukraine’s then-president, Petro Poroshenko, and then-prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees if Ukraine failed to deal with corruption and remove Shokin as its prosecutor general. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

For 23 months it has been public that Biden said something about the Ukrainian prosecutor. Trump waited to ask Ukraine for an investigation until Biden announced he was a candidate for president. 

If Biden did something so damaging to US interests the Senate could have been investigating all along. And up until this past January, so could have the House. But there was nothing. 

I don't think you are as naive as you act, so there is something else going on. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.6    one month ago
Why not? He asked the president of Ukraine to look into something the vice president did in his country. Why is that wrong?

Come on Tacos!, you're taking your 'devil's advocate' bit too far. 

IMHO, Trump didn't actually give a fuck if any investigation took place. ALL Trump wanted was 'the deliverable', the public statement that would and could be used by Solomon and Hannity ad nauseam, ad infinitum. 

The reason it's WRONG is because it is ONLY in the interest of Trump. Both of the witnesses, who are subject matter experts on Ukraine, stated as much today. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
7.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.9    one month ago
Trump waited to ask Ukraine for an investigation until Biden announced he was a candidate for president.

Or he waited until there was a president of Ukraine who might be receptive to rooting out corruption in his country. Remember the more generic purpose of the call - to congratulate the new president.

Also, Biden announced his candidacy on April 25, and Trump and Giuliani have been chasing this story longer than that. 

On March 20, Trump tweeted about it :

“John Solomon: As Russia Collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges.”

And the media was starting to cover it.

3/27/19: HOW DONALD TRUMP AND SEAN HANNITY ARE PROMOTING THEORY UKRAINE INTERFERED IN 2016 ELECTION TO HELP HILLARY CLINTON

4/1/19: Joe Biden's 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived

4/7/19: Ukrainian to US prosecutors: Why don't you want our evidence on Democrats?

And all of this happened before Biden announced he was running for president. So it's not just something he decided to pursue only because Biden was running. I don't think it was even primarily about torpedoing Biden's campaign or potential campaign, as much as it was about fighting back against the Mueller investigation and going after Hillary Clinton.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.11    one month ago
Or he waited until there was a president of Ukraine who might be receptive to rooting out corruption in his country. 

Well as the GOP tried so desperately to pound home today, corruption has been  'endemic' in Ukraine for a long time. 

So maybe you can explain why Trump asked for $250 million in military aid for Ukraine in his 2019 Budget released in February 2018 if he was so fucking worried about Ukrainian corruption? 

Or how about taking a crack at explaining why Trump signed the bill that included that $250 million in October 2018? 

Then could you move on to why Trump didn't file a rescission of that $250 million before the DOJ wasted all that time certifying the aid? Hell, He could have ripped off $250 million less from the DOJ by 'reprogramming' that funding. Why didn't he do any of that? 

Then could you address Trump's failure to follow the legal process for requesting legal assistance in investigations from Ukraine? 

Inquiring minds want to know...

 
 
 
CB
7.2.13  CB   replied to  Tacos! @7.2.11    one month ago
going after Hillary Clinton

Please humor me with a theory of the case! In the words of Tina Turner: "What's [Hillary] got to do with it?"

 
 
 
Tessylo
7.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  cjcold @7.2.3    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.15  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.4    4 weeks ago
He's the fucking president of the United States and a candidate running against Biden.

"Sleepy" Joe Biden is the Democrats Nominee for president ?

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.16  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.15    4 weeks ago

Anything is better than Deranged Dipshit Donnie.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.17  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @7.2.16    4 weeks ago
Anything is better than Deranged Dipshit Donnie.

Is "Your" life better or worse right now ! jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
7.2.18  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @7.2.17    4 weeks ago
Is "Your" life better or worse right now

It's about the same - the economy that Obama got going is still working for me, although Trump's tariffs will probably hurt me before long. The ACA that Obama implemented was a huge money saver when I had to quit working for a while to take care of my elderly mother; luckily, now that Trump's doing his best to destroy it, I'm back to work and have health benefits, so Trump can't currently hurt me in that regard.

However, I'm not selfish enough to only care how things impact ME. When I see what a laughingstock Deranged Donnie has made of our country and our constitution, how he sucks up to our enemies and alienates our allies, how his childish impulses are hurting real people and hurting our diplomacy, how he is tearing this country apart and dividing us so much, how he's destroying environmental protections, how he's making all these idiots accept his lies as truth and making honesty and ethics something that half of all Americans no longer give a shit about ... makes me glad I don't have kids.

 
 
 
It Is ME
7.2.19  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @7.2.18    4 weeks ago
t's about the same - the economy that Obama got going is still working for me

So...."Dipshit" hasn't hurt you one bit, but you're willing to put that on the auction block for an "Anything" ? jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg

That's just GREAT ! jrSmiley_15_smiley_image.gif

" However, I'm not selfish enough to only care how things impact ME. When I see what a laughingstock Deranged Donnie has made of our country and our constitution."

And how has he done that ? jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By letting other countries skate on their obligations?

No....That can't be it !

By wanting open borders ?

No.....that can't be it !

By wanting to raise taxes on middle class U.S. citizens for Freebies for the few ? 

No......that can't be it !

By wanting to pay for "non-Citizens" needs ?

No......that can't be it !

Maybe its taxing legal gun and ammunition sales ?

No....that's not it !

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh.....Oh …….Ooooooohhhhhh…… MAYBE IT'S because he doesn't want to do those simple items noted above ?

That's it.....isn't it ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

You do know that the Preamble to the constitution says:

To " PROMOTE" the general welfare....not " PROVIDE For " the general welfare ...... Right ?

"PROMOTE" :

To Encourage, Support !

Don't see "Supply" anywhere in that definition.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.11    4 weeks ago
And the media was starting to cover it.

So by the 'media' you mean Solomon and Hannity who just got fired by the Hill. Got ya. 

BTFW, the Newsweek article supports the testimony that Yovanovitch WAS outspoken about corruption in Ukraine. Guess that pissed off Trump and Kent was right, you can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7.2.21  JohnRussell  replied to  katrix @7.2.18    4 weeks ago
Is "Your" life better or worse right now

This is essentially "he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue " defense, which seeks to separate Trump from his actual behavior. 

Is "Your" life better or worse right now

I have a funny feeling that not too many people who were already predisposed to back Trump answer that affirmatively. Trump policies in specific simply havent had that much effect on everyone. And of course, to wholeheartedly accept trump as an economic savior you have to assume that Hillary Clinton would have destroyed the recovery Obama started, which is simply absurd. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.22  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.20    4 weeks ago
you mean Solomon and Hannity who just got fired by the Hill.

Not True. 

John Solomon left to start his own media firm.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.23  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.22    4 weeks ago

Solomon joined Fox News, guess he doesn't think much of his 'Independent' prospects. 

Now he and Hannity can shovel bullshit to new depths. 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.24  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.23    4 weeks ago

Why make up the he got fired story though?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.25  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.20    4 weeks ago
 Solomon and Hannity who just got fired by the Hill. Got ya. 

Really? When did this happen? Is this some of that info that you are only privy to [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.26  Dulay  replied to  Dulay @7.2.12    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.27  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.24    4 weeks ago

It's not a 'story', the Hill's REAL journalists sent complaints up the chain and the management got the message and they 'parted ways' with Solomon. 

Oh and BTW BF, you make up stories all of the time and we're supposed to pretend it's humor. You can pretend too can't you? 

 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.28  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.26    4 weeks ago

Still nothing on your made up statement on John Solomon? 

Did you hear that lie on MSINFOWARS?

512

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.29  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.27    4 weeks ago

Just own it, you purposefully made the story up.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.30  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.28    4 weeks ago
Still nothing on your made up statement on John Solomon? 

Gee BF, I didn't realize you were holding your breath waiting for my reply.

It's good that I don't care one way or another about yours, I would have suffocated waiting for your replies.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.31  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.29    4 weeks ago

Or what? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.32  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.31    4 weeks ago

384

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.33  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.32    4 weeks ago

What no penis? 

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
7.2.34  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  Dulay @7.2.33    4 weeks ago
What no penis? 

How Ironic!

 
 
 
Ronin2
7.2.35  Ronin2  replied to  cjcold @7.2.1    4 weeks ago

After the Steele Dossier. Slink away. Just slink the damn hell away.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.36  Dulay  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @7.2.34    4 weeks ago

How obtuse. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.37  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.26    4 weeks ago

I feel the same way about you as you do.

256

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.38  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @7.2.33    4 weeks ago
What no penis? 

Do you hear that a lot?

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.2.39  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.7    4 weeks ago

Typical, Imagine this, imagine that, imagine this etc. Deflection again

 
 
 
CB
7.2.40  CB   replied to  It Is ME @7.2.17    4 weeks ago

Let's get rid of your specious meme 'right now':

For a proper good deed nobody blames President Donald Trump.

For having a long-term strategy of inviting our radical enemies on the world stage into our bosom without challenging them to drastically improve their national and political behavior;

for paling around with terrorist-leaders (men who justify rank murder of their enemies);

for attempting to enforce the pushing out of DACA youth into a 'no-man's land' between nations;

for not protecting and granting unlimited rights and freedom of expression (and national service) for transgendered people in the federal system;

for being an dishonest 'broker' of the American tax dollar; and,

for three years of tampering to change this country's ethos into a cult-like following unified under a dictatorial ("One-man rule"), I, we, have an A BIG PROBLEM OF NOT BEING BETTER OFF right now!

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.41  FLYNAVY1  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.5    4 weeks ago

Because I rely on factual evidence to make judgments instead of partisan cynicism?

Since when?  

Proven obstruction of justice outlined in the Muller report wasn't enough for you.

Actual statements by Trump siding with Putin/Russia over American intelligence wasn't enough for you.

Actions against our Kurdish and Ukrainian allies aren't enough for you.

No.... Facts don't matter to you Tacos.... Just the "R" by the name.

 
 
 
MUVA
7.2.42  MUVA  replied to  FLYNAVY1 @7.2.41    4 weeks ago

Your post is complete BS.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
7.2.43  KDMichigan  replied to  KDMichigan @7.2.37    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
7.2.44  FLYNAVY1  replied to  MUVA @7.2.42    4 weeks ago

Ooooooohhhhh!  Way to counter my points MUVA.

Leave it to you to bring a ping pong ball to a gunfight.  Hell guess your response was an improvement over your typical "But Obama....!".

 
 
 
dennis smith
7.2.45  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @7.2.4    4 weeks ago

Newstalkers deserves better than your comments

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.46  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @7.2.45    4 weeks ago

Ditto. 

 
 
 
Dulay
7.2.47  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @7.2.11    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8  Paula Bartholomew    one month ago

Trump claimed he would not watch and then criticizes the testimonies given.  Liar In Chief strikes again.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
8.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8    one month ago

He gets briefings you know and I am sure someone was watching, if he wasn't, and updating him on the circus.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
8.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @8.1    4 weeks ago
He gets briefings you know

From FoxNews.

 
 
 
Tacos!
8.2  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8    one month ago

Pretty sure he was hanging out with the president of Turkey because the two came out for a press conference immediately following the hearing. But if you have other information, by all means . . . 

 
 
 
Ender
8.2.1  Ender  replied to  Tacos! @8.2    one month ago

His new best buddy. He is in love again...

 
 
 
katrix
8.3  katrix  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8    4 weeks ago

He also claimed he wanted transparency, while telling all his toadies not to testify and whining now that the hearings are open.

 
 
 
Tacos!
9  Tacos!    one month ago

That was embarrassing. The best, first witnesses in this "crisis" offered hearsay testimony of third-hand rumors of things that they thought could happen but never actually happened. Congress has set aside real business for this nonsense all so they can declare a scandal around Trump leading into the election. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
9.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Tacos! @9    one month ago
e best, first witnesses in this "crisis" offered hearsay testimony of third-hand rumors of things

I can't believe that was the opening witness.
They needed to start with a bang to develop momentum  and they went with a witness who Jordan leveled in two minutes. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
9.2  It Is ME  replied to  Tacos! @9    4 weeks ago
The best, first witnesses in this "crisis" offered hearsay testimony of third-hand rumors of things that they thought could happen but never actually happened.

While they were eating in a restaurant ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
gooseisgone
10  seeder  gooseisgone    one month ago
Wonder when "Schifty" is gonna release his "Unrefutably" IMPEACHABLE Evidence he's had since 2017

When he comes out of the closet and admits he's actually Beetle Juice.

320

320

 
 
 
CB
10.1  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @10    one month ago

If it is not name-calling; it's pulling faces. Are you losing the argument, . . . ?

 
 
 
gooseisgone
10.1.1  seeder  gooseisgone  replied to  CB @10.1    one month ago
If it is not name-calling; it's pulling faces. Are you losing the argument

I don't normally call people names(unless of course they deserve it),  as for "pulling faces" this is a first for me.  Losing the argument...….there is no argument to lose. Everything is hearsay and feelings. 

 
 
 
CB
10.1.2  CB   replied to  gooseisgone @10.1.1    one month ago

One more time: The Impeachment Hearing is not a court of law. It is a sharing of (hopefully) factual information under oath. Now, perhaps if all the parties assembled in this hearing will swear to tell the truth. . . .

It leads to a damn good question. Who swears in the congressfolks ahead of time? "Let the games begin!"  Is not a good look and is not working for me.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
10.2  KDMichigan  replied to  gooseisgone @10    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.2.1  Sunshine  replied to  KDMichigan @10.2    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kathleen
10.2.2  Kathleen  replied to  KDMichigan @10.2    4 weeks ago

😂

 
 
 
Tacos!
10.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  KDMichigan @10.2    4 weeks ago

Even the hairline works!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.2.4  Greg Jones  replied to  KDMichigan @10.2    4 weeks ago

Good one!  LMAO!

 
 
 
Tacos!
11  Tacos!    one month ago

I think my favorite moment so far was when - after allowing blatant hearsay testimony for like 45 minutes - Schiff interrupts the Republican examination to caution the witnesses against answering questions based on facts not in evidence. i.e., he's objecting. As if we were in a trial. And the Republican asking questions is like, "Oh, now we're using the Federal Rules of Evidence?"

And apparently the answer is yes, we are, but only when Republicans are asking questions. What a joke these proceedings are!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @11    one month ago

Tacos, tell us again how you really dont like and support Trump.  I havent had a good laugh in a few minutes. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    one month ago

[Deleted.] I come into your seeds to discuss the topic. Never once have I come into your seeds to attack you personally, but that's all you want to do with me. And apparently, you're proud of it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Tacos! @11.1.1    one month ago

I don't appreciate bamboozling on these forums. I guess that is my problem. 

 
 
 
WallyW
11.1.3  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @11.1.3    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.5  katrix  replied to  WallyW @11.1.3    4 weeks ago

I think someone who apparently has never read a fact in his life, but spouts off in here all the time claiming to know what's going on (anything to support the most despicable person ever elected as president) is an embarrassment to this forum. And to our country.

Instead of constantly demanding proof which you never read, and posting utter bullshit, why not try doing some actual research before you post?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.1.6  Greg Jones  replied to  katrix @11.1.5    4 weeks ago

Easily triggered it appears. Wally's truthful observations really seem to set some people off.

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.7  katrix  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1.6    4 weeks ago

Both you and Wally have been spouting the same BS for a few years, and none of your claims have yet to come true.

But keep pretending you have some kind of inside scoop and know what's going to happen before it happens; your credibility is already shot.

Rather hilarious that your TDS makes you think that expecting people to actually read facts is somehow "being triggered" - and that utter bullshit is "truthful observations." Actually it's not hilarious - it's pathetic and despicable.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11    one month ago

Wow, that's an utterly delusional version of what was said. Well done.

You might want to review the rambling, multifaceted, conspiracy filled question that Castor asked.  

Schiff NEVER objected to one question asked by anyone during the hearing. 

Just STOP.

 
 
 
Ender
11.2.1  Ender  replied to  Dulay @11.2    one month ago

What got me was one ass kept asking questions then wouldn't let the witness answer. Kept talking over him. Then asking a different question before he was allowed to answer the first. Then saying, Ok, that was not a question. Then ramble on about something else.

I felt Schiff gave them a lot of leeway.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.2  Dulay  replied to  Ender @11.2.1    one month ago
I felt Schiff gave them a lot of leeway.

He did the same in the depositions. The only time he put his foot down was when they tried to out the whistleblower. The only time he paused their bullshit today was when Castor threw out a loaded question and tried to slip in a DNC conspiracy, Schiff warned Taylor not to assume that facts not in evidence are truthful. That was for Taylor's own protection. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.2.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @11.2    one month ago
Just STOP.

or what?

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.3    one month ago
or what?

Oh my bad Tacos!, you just keep on keepin on spewing bullshit comments to your heart's content. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
CB
11.2.5  CB   replied to  Dulay @11.2.2    one month ago

It was a good call. Ambassador Taylor appeared perplexed as to rather a staff lawyer could give him a 'pig in its own blanket' free! LOL!

Schiff: smart!

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @11.2.4    4 weeks ago
'you just keep on keepin on spewing bullshit comments to your heart's content.'

When that's all you got, you go for it.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.2.6    4 weeks ago

You would know.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.7    4 weeks ago
You would know.

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.2.9  Tacos!  replied to  Tessylo @11.2.8    4 weeks ago

No, you would know.

ScaryEnlightenedBobwhite-size_restricted

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.2.10  Greg Jones  replied to  Dulay @11.2    4 weeks ago

There was a left wing conspiracy going on, and Barr and Durham are right now in the process of getting to the bottom of it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.11  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.10    4 weeks ago

Yeah, we've been waiting for years for those indictments.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.10    4 weeks ago
There was a left wing conspiracy going on,

LOL. Hardly a sillier comment could be made. It would be almost impossible. 

Supposedly Barr and Durham are looking into the US intelligence agencies .  Is it your belief that the CIA is "left wing?"

You are just mouthing ridiculous right wing media talking points. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @11.2.9    4 weeks ago
No, you would know.

 
 
 
Dulay
11.2.14  Dulay  replied to  Greg Jones @11.2.10    4 weeks ago

You know this how? Has the DOJ released the documentation required to lawfully request legal assistance from Ukraine? Got a link to that? 

Or did you hear on Hannity that they're doing it extra-judiciously? 

BTW, you know that the DOJ put out a press release that stated that Trump hasn't asked Barr to do any kind of investigation into Ukraine right? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.2.15  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @11.2.14    4 weeks ago

It would take an intelligent person, at the most, 15 or 20 minutes to understand why Trump wanted Ukraine to get involved with his demands. 

Trump has been led to believe, through conservative media conspiracy theories, that Ukraine was behind all the interference in the 2016 election. These conservative conspiracy theories have been almost entirely disproven. This nonsense appeals to Trump though, because it makes him believe that he would have won the popular vote in 2016 if not for ..... Ukraine. 

Then there is the desire to have Biden called corrupt. This is the Trump playbook - accuse others of being what you are yourself. He is easily the most corrupt national politician in the lifetime of anyone alive today.  Rather than face that reality, he wants to shift attention to someone else, in this case Joe Biden. 

His devotion to ridiculous conspiracies was relatively harmless to him until he tried to get the new government of Ukraine involved in his insanity.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
12  Kathleen    4 weeks ago

I notice now that Pelosi is using the word ‘bribery’ as a new tactic to make it look impeachable since their other tactics did not work.  What a joke.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Kathleen @12    4 weeks ago

Yes, they've been focus testing buzz words. That was the winner. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2  Tacos!  replied to  Kathleen @12    4 weeks ago
I notice now that Pelosi is using the word ‘bribery’

Let's say it is bribery, just for the sake of argument. My sense of the Framers of the Constitution is that when they thought of bribery, they weren't worried about the president of the United States bribing the leader of another government. They were worried about someone bribing the president.

In the records of the Federal Convention of 1787, there was some discussion of this concern.

During the state debates over ratification of the Constitution, former delegate Charles Cotesworth Pinckney explained that while “kings are less liable to foreign bribery and corruption … because no bribe that could be given them could compensate the loss they must necessarily sustain for injuring their dominions … the situation of a President would be very different.” As a temporary officeholder, the president “ might receive a bribe which would enable him to live in greater splendor in another country than his own; and when out of office, he was no more interested in the prosperity of his country than any other patriotic citizen.”

They didn't want our institutions corrupted. They weren't worried about Ukrainian institutions.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2    4 weeks ago
In the records of the Federal Convention of 1787, there was some discussion of this concern.

1. Yet those comments weren't made at the Constitutional Convention, they were made at the  South Carolina Ratification Debates. 

2. Pinckney wasn't talking about Impeachment in that statement, he was talking about making Treaties. 

They didn't want our institutions corrupted. 

3. Exactly, they didn't want the President to solicit dirt on a political opponent in exchange for official action.

That would be bribery. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.1    4 weeks ago

Perhaps you can explain how an incumbent president is supposed to get information on his political opponent (dirt, as you call it), if that information is corrupt and covered up. Or is he supposed to ignore it?

That would be bribery

As I said, I see no indication that the founders were concerned with the president bribing leaders of other nations. It is far more likely they were concerned with either someone bribing the president, or the president bribing someone in America.

It was assumed that wealthy kings were above being bribed, but a poorly paid president might not be.

This is not to say that I think Trump bribed anyone. It's just for the sake of examining the rules.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.2    4 weeks ago
Perhaps you can explain how an incumbent president is supposed to get information on his political opponent (dirt, as you call it), if that information is corrupt and covered up. Or is he supposed to ignore it?

First of all, ignore WHAT? There is no there, there. The whole Biden/Ukraine conspiracy is bullshit.  

Second of all, there is a LEGAL way to request assistance from Ukraine for help in criminal investigations. In FACT, Kelensky's top aid, Yermak, told Volker, that if what the US REALLY wanted was an investigation into Burisma, they should file a FORMAL request through channels. There's a fucking TREATY covering that process. When Volker told Taylor about his conversation with Yermak, Taylor gave Volker the name of a Deputy Assistant Attorney General to contact to get that done.

But THAT never happened because Volker knew damn well THAT isn't what Trump  REALLY wanted. 

The very idea that Trump would demand that Zelensky investigate Biden for a violation of Ukrainian law is outrageous to any normal person, especially if they're Americans. 

Oh and BTFW, Barr's spokeswoman said:

“The president has not spoken with the attorney general about having Ukraine investigate anything relating to former Vice President Biden or his son,” DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec said. “The president has not asked the attorney general to contact Ukraine — on this or any other matter. The attorney general has not communicated with Ukraine — on this or any other subject. Nor has the attorney general discussed this matter, or anything relating to Ukraine, with Rudy Giuliani.” 

There you go, Trump hasn't used ANY LEGAL avenue to get the information he pretends to want. 

So the answer to your question is NOT the way the Trump tried to do it. 

That's the kind of information people garner when they pursue FACTS rather than swill the pabulum pushed by Trump/Fox ect. 

Now, I answered your question, cogently and thoroughly, how about you answer the questions I asked you yesterday? Or do you think that it's kosher to ask me questions while bailing on questions I ask you? You can always just admit that you don't have a fucking clue what the answers are. 

Or better yet, you could go pursue the facts and share them with the class. 

As I said, I see no indication that the founders were concerned with the president bribing leaders of other nations. It is far more likely they were concerned with either someone bribing the president, or the president bribing someone in America.

Bribery includes solicitation. It did then and it does now. Your inability to recognize that is on you. 


It was assumed that wealthy kings were above being bribed, but a poorly paid president might not be.
This is not to say that I think Trump bribed anyone. It's just for the sake of examining the rules.

You can't explain the rules because you don't understand them. 

 
 
 
CB
12.2.4  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2    4 weeks ago

th?id=OIP.uZnuu1ih-_bhSc-I8iuzewHaHa&w=2 Please!

 
 
 
CB
12.2.5  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.2    4 weeks ago
Perhaps you can explain how an incumbent president is supposed to get information on his political opponent (dirt, as you call it), if that information is corrupt and covered up. Or is he supposed to ignore it?

By following the Rule of Law? By not bending the Rule of Law to cover Donald and his henchmen's (donalders) illegal conspiratorial political racketeering  under presidential prerogative.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.6  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.3    4 weeks ago

So much angst mixed with so much stupid in your post. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.7  Tacos!  replied to  CB @12.2.4    4 weeks ago

Sometimes there’s just stinkin

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.8  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.6    4 weeks ago
So much angst

Really Tacos!? Exactly what are you alleging that I dread? Please be specific. 

mixed with so much stupid in your post. 

What are you claiming was stupid in my post? Again, specifics would be nice. 

BTFW, well done on following your MO of avoiding addressing the topic and devolving to personal comment. 

I note that you continue to bail on the questions I asked you. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
12.2.9  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @12.2.3    4 weeks ago
The very idea that Trump would demand that Zelensky investigate Biden for a violation of Ukrainian law is outrageous to any normal person, especially if they're Americans. 

What "demand"?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.10  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.2.9    4 weeks ago

I can post the information, I can't understand it for you. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
12.2.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @12.2.10    4 weeks ago

Find anything that points to a demand. I'll wait..................and prolly wait and wait and wait. While I realize your interpretations of all things Trump are sooooo fact filled and unbiased, dazzle me. GO

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.12  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.2.11    4 weeks ago
Find anything that points to a demand. 

https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/_cache/files/a/4/a4a91fab-99cd-4eb9-9c6c-ec1c586494b9/621801458E982E9903839ABC7404A917.chairmen-letter-on-state-departmnent-texts-10-03-19.pdf

I'll wait..................and prolly wait and wait and wait.

Patience grasshopper. 

While I realize your interpretations of all things Trump are sooooo fact filled and unbiased, dazzle me. GO

I provided the link to the text messages submitted by Volker over a MONTH ago. You can read them for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Pay special attention to the texts relating to the statement that Trump DEMANDED Zelensky make and the DEMAND about it's content. 

GO

Then come back and refute, with FACTS, that there was a DEMAND. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.3    4 weeks ago
how about you answer the questions I asked you yesterday?

Because I don't keep track of every post you make and I have no idea what you asked me yesterday that you think I didn't answer. I'm not going to go hunting for what you're talking about either. Nothing you could possibly ask me would be worth the effort and time.

If you have something you want to ask me, you can try asking it. Maybe you'll get lucky and I'll answer. Maybe I'll realize you're just trolling or being a sea lion (as the cool kids say) and ignore the taunting. It all depends on the circumstances.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
12.2.14  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @12.2.12    4 weeks ago

Looked at your link, read through, even did a word search and STILL no fucking demand. Wanna try again? Pretty please......................

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.15  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.2.14    4 weeks ago

Again, I can give you the information, I can't make you understand it. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.13    4 weeks ago
Because I don't keep track of every post you make and I have no idea what you asked me yesterday that you think I didn't answer. I'm not going to go hunting for what you're talking about either. Nothing you could possibly ask me would be worth the effort and time.

Well that's an interesting statement Tacos! because in the past when I have missed your questions, you've chased me down for an answer. You seem to think that your every utterance is my 'worth the effort and time'. 

If you have something you want to ask me, you can try asking it.

I already have, you bailed. Own it. 

Maybe you'll get lucky and I'll answer.

Your act of continued evasion is an answer in itself. 

Maybe I'll realize you're just trolling or being a sea lion (as the cool kids say) and ignore the taunting. It all depends on the circumstances.

WOW! So a trifecta! That's an extraordinary personal attack even for you. You must be proud. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
12.2.17  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @12.2.15    4 weeks ago
Again, I can give you the information, I can't make you understand it.

If that means you can't get me to interpret it the way YOU want me to, you are correct.

800

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.18  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.16    4 weeks ago
Well that's an interesting statement

No it isn't. Wrong again. (I can't wait to now see you try to argue that my statement was interesting. You can be my champion!)

in the past when I have missed your questions, you've chased me down for an answer

Yes, by repeating the question, so you'd know what I was talking about. You were invited to do that here, but you didn't. Probably because your claim isn't true. 

You seem to think that your every utterance is my 'worth the effort and time'. 

Every one? Got links to prove that? No, of course you don't. But you say it anyway.

Own it

I see nothing to own.

Your act of continued evasion is an answer in itself.

I never said I wouldn't answer a question. I said I didn't know what it was.

That's an extraordinary personal attack even for you.

That was an attack on your statement, not you. One of these days, you'll understand. Or maybe you won't.

You must be proud.

Oh yes, very much so.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.19  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.7    4 weeks ago

Yes, that's true.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.20  CB   replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @12.2.17    4 weeks ago

Oh brother.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.18    4 weeks ago
No it isn't. Wrong again. (I can't wait to now see you try to argue that my statement was interesting. You can be my champion!)

Actually, if I were so inclined, I would be defending my own opinion that it was interesting.

Yes, by repeating the question, so you'd know what I was talking about. You were invited to do that here, but you didn't.

If you can't be bothered to look up the thread, why should I? 

Probably because your claim isn't true. 

Why make a comment that is a demonstrable lie? I invite any member that's interested to look up seed for the questions I asked you and note that you bailed thereafter. 

Every one? Got links to prove that? No, of course you don't. But you say it anyway.

You don't seem to understand what the words 'seem to' connotes. 

I see nothing to own.

Hey, if you want to bail, so be it. I just encourage you to realize that it chips away at what little credibility your retain. Not that you care. 

I never said I wouldn't answer a question. I said I didn't know what it was.

I accept that you can't be bothered to review the seed and answer the questions you bailed on. 

That was an attack on your statement, not you. One of these days, you'll understand. Or maybe you won't.

Right and THAT was another example of an attack on my statement and not me. jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

Oh yes, very much so.

I knew you would be. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.21    4 weeks ago
If you can't be bothered to look up the thread, why should I?

It's pretty clear at this point that you were lying about it.

Why make a comment that is a demonstrable lie?

"Demonstrable" means you can demonstrate it, i.e. prove it. You refuse, so it's obviously not a demonstrable lie. What's clear through simple deductive reasoning is that you were lying about me refusing to answer a question. You can't or won't produce proof of your ridiculous claim, so logically, you made it up.

what the words 'seem to' connotes

It means you're making stuff up.

Hey, if you want to bail, so be it.

Nope. Still here. No bailing. I will continue to shine a light on your lies.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
12.2.23  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.22    4 weeks ago

OK, using words like lying and calling people's comments lies is getting to the edge of a violation. Let's dial it back. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.22    4 weeks ago
It's pretty clear at this point that you were lying about it.

Actually, the only thing that is clear is that your can't be bothered to go back and look at the questions I asked you and answer them. Claiming that I am lying is utter bullshit. 

"Demonstrable" means you can demonstrate it, i.e. prove it.

Demonstrable means that it can be proven. It has nothing to do with whether I can prove it.  

You refuse, so it's obviously not a demonstrable lie.

What I do has nothing to do whether your comment is a demonstrable lie. It would be so if I disappeared from the planet. 

What's clear through simple deductive reasoning is that you were lying about me refusing to answer a question.

Nope, you bailed, own it. 

You can't or won't produce proof of your ridiculous claim, so logically, you made it up.

My claim isn't ridiculous, you bailed on the questions I asked. I'm merely following the MO that you and your fellow travelers by insisting on answers to my questions. 

It means you're making stuff up.

In what language does 'seems to' means 'making stuff up'? 

Nope. Still here. No bailing 

Yet no answers. You know that other members can look at the seed for themselves and see the questions I asked you, that you FAILED to answer, yet you seem to think it's 'clever' to pretend that they're invisible. 

I will continue to shine a light on your lies.

You can't continue what you've never started. The only thing that you've shined a light on is laziness. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.25  Tacos!  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @12.2.23    4 weeks ago

I understand, and I will try to comply.

In fairness, I think that the sentiment that I am lying has been expressed at me repeatedly without using the actual L-word. I don't think using the word makes it worse.

Constantly telling me what I really think, that I have done things I haven't, or saying that my opinion is BS (but using the word) all amount to the same thing. But people get away with it because there is no L-word. 

So yes, after being hounded over and over like this, I finally felt like I would just call a spade a spade. I apologize.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.26  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.25    4 weeks ago

Excuse me, but we see you. Now we can spin our time talking about the "gentleman or woman -this" or the "tenderman or woman -that" while the wolves visit to eat our sheep for breakfast, lunch, dinner, and an 'overnighter'—raving or summarily dismissing our points, or we can all try to discover new productive ways to 'fire up' and revive the spirit of the man or woman writing on the site.

It is not enough to come in here every day, or ever so often, to just shuffle. . . 'stuff' back and forth. Commentary should spirit a meaningful message, convey something of interest and value, from the speaker to the receiver. If its fact then it needs to be internalized. If it is humor than it should generate a smile or all out laughter.

So what am I saying? None of us after a time are beyond being 'figured out,' because most of what we discuss in here is designed to take a stand on issues. If you do not like how others perceive you then you must LABOR like others do to correct how you come across. President Donald Trump is a case in point. There is not middle ground with the man. He makes it plain: You either want what he has to offer you - or you can stand outside the White House gates with security between you and his positions.

I stand outside the gate. (As do the men and women officials who are at this time stepping out from behind Donald's 'wall of stone' to speak up for what is wholesome, decent, proper, and dare I say, the human thing to do.) The question for you is this: Where are you in this scenario?

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.27  Tacos!  replied to  CB @12.2.26    4 weeks ago
Excuse me, but we see you.

That's the whole problem. You shouldn't even be looking at me. I am not your business.

Your comment is another example of someone who is not here to discuss the issues, but rather to attack people who hold a position you disagree with. I will quote you directly to illustrate my point:

None of us after a time are beyond being 'figured out,' because most of what we discuss in here is designed to take a stand on issues. If you do not like how others perceive you then you must LABOR like others do to correct how you come across.

Personally, I'm not here to figure anyone out. That would be an arrogant presumption. Sometimes I agree with certain people. Other times we disagree. I'm here to discuss the topic of the seed, whatever that might be. If you are trying to "figure (people) out" that sounds more like you are identifying allies and enemies. 

That makes it clear that you're not here to take a stand on an issue. You're more concerned with categorizing and communicating your perception of me as a bad person to bolster your position on the issues. That is, my point of view doesn't need to be engaged because I'm such a bad person that my opinion is not worthy of actual debate.

What's more, you declare that if I don't like it, there is a burden on me to somehow convince you that your perception of me is wrong. Sorry, but I'm not interested. The only reason I care at all is because when you discuss me, you're not discussing the topic, which is what I came for.

It's an effective tactic, I suppose. If we stick to the topic, I can post links or reference data to support the claims I make on the issues. I can't do that kind of thing for my personal beliefs, thoughts, motivations, and so on. Therefore you are free to attack me on those points because no evidence is available to refute your claims about me that you have "figured out."

You look at any seed on this site and my first comments will always be about the topic and not about a member making a comment or something about their character that is behind their comment. 

 
 
 
CB
12.2.28  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.27    4 weeks ago
That is, my point of view doesn't need to be engaged because I'm such a bad person that my opinion is not worthy of actual debate.

I am not engaging in victim-hood and I suggest you don't either.

[Deleted!] This is not about you, but we would be guilty of negligence, if we do not talk to the man or woman behind the screen from time to time. The Wizard of Oz this is not!

I repeat, It is not enough to come in here every day, or ever so often, to just shuffle. . . 'stuff' back and forth. Commentary should spirit a meaningful message, convey something of interest and value, from the speaker to the receiver. If its fact then it needs to be internalized. If it is humor than it should generate a smile or all out laughter.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.29  Tacos!  replied to  CB @12.2.28    4 weeks ago
I am not engaging in victim-hood and I suggest you don't either.

I'm not. All I am telling you is that unless you want to fight with me, you will talk about the topic and not me. Instead of trying to figure me out, maybe you should figure out what you come here for.

If it's to discuss issues, then by all means talk to me. If it's to go after people in a personal way, then talk to someone else.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.30  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.29    4 weeks ago

Enough already! Up is up and down is down. All day. Every day. Until eternity. That's all. Miss me with all that other -"hoo-rah". I am interested in the subject matter and your 'role' and use of in it in discussion. As a matter of fact, your worldview, including politics, is a part of who you are. If you consider it to bridge too far for me, others, to ask you about how come you form, and why you hold to certain ways of looking at the world and politics, maybe it is you who should consider giving it up.

When it is possible to lay facts on this comment board, it is not wrong for any of us to have expectation that everybody should agree with facts. When someone insists on having a spurious view in spite of facts, than expect that sooner or later someone is going to want to know who in "heaven" they are spending time writing back and forth with! Not to "damage" you personally, but to get a sense of what the, . . .heaven, is going on in that person's 'world.'

Now, good day—for now.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.31  CB   replied to  CB @12.2.30    4 weeks ago

I am fed up with Trump loyalists and fence-straddlers being provocative, threatening, and all the while seeking to literally strip liberals of their rights and privileges in the real world, becoming

blue-flower-2.jpg

shrinking violets , and one big ooowweee 'sore' once someone shines a solid and continuing light on their weak arguments and stupe. The election season in full bloom is right around the corner.

Bulk up, you "bagdad bobbies"! Facts and figures can take a scorched-earth approach too!

 
 
 
MUVA
12.2.32  MUVA  replied to  CB @12.2.31    4 weeks ago

What in the hell are you going on about?

 
 
 
CB
12.2.33  CB   replied to  MUVA @12.2.32    4 weeks ago

Shrinking violets. That's all, Muva. I got it all out of my system now and I feel a heaven of a lot better. Moving forward.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.34  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.29    4 weeks ago
All I am telling you is that unless you want to fight with me, you will talk about the topic and not me.

Coming from you, that's fucking hilarious. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.35  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.2.34    4 weeks ago

I see you're still here to discuss the topic. /s

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.36  Tacos!  replied to  CB @12.2.30    4 weeks ago
to ask you about how come you form, and why you hold to certain ways of looking at the world and politics

That might be an interesting conversation, but that's not what you do. Instead of asking, you tell and you judge. If I actually do have something to say about my own perspective, you are not interested in hearing about it.

 
 
 
CB
12.2.37  CB   replied to  Tacos! @12.2.36    4 weeks ago
If I actually do have something to say about my own perspective, you are not interested in hearing about it.

And yet you share the perspective of a lying, conniving, bombastic, megalomaniac named Donald J. Trump, who is oppressing the constituents of this country who are not okay with "Yes siring" him. I have a question for you (if you deign to answer it):

HOW DO YOU DECIDE WHEN DONALD TRUMP IS TELLING THE TRUTH?

 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.2.38  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.35    4 weeks ago
I see you're still here to discuss the topic. /s

Coming from you, that's fucking hilarious.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.2.39  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.35    4 weeks ago

@12.2.35

Sometimes you just have to consider the source.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @12    4 weeks ago
What a joke.

Actually, that's what adults call what Trump did. 

Bribery:

Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.

Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift. 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.3    4 weeks ago
Actually, that's what adults call what Trump did.  Bribery:

Funny. Last week, “adults” were calling it extortion. And it was clear. Unequivocal. Now that’s changed. Guess a memo went out.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.3.1    4 weeks ago
Funny. Last week, “adults” were calling it extortion. And it was clear. Unequivocal. Now that’s changed. Guess a memo went out.

It beats the 'nuh uh' coming from you and your follow travelers. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.3.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.3    4 weeks ago
Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift.

The case is solved! The recipient did not directly alter behavior and there was no gift.

OK, back to work, everyone!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.4  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.3.3    4 weeks ago
The case is solved! The recipient did not directly alter behavior and there was no gift.

Solicitation of a bribe also constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bribery

OK, back to work, everyone!

If you'd done 'work' on this issue, you would have read the link I provided in the comment you replied to and one would hope that you would not have made the uninformed comment you did. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
12.3.5  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @12.3.2    4 weeks ago
It beats the 'nuh uh' coming from you and your follow travelers. 

Well that's better than the complete BS you make up and pass off as fact.

Find any confirmation on your Solomon firing yet?

o by the 'media' you mean Solomon and Hannity who just got fired by the Hill. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3.6  Dulay  replied to  KDMichigan @12.3.5    4 weeks ago
Well that's better than the complete BS you make up and pass off as fact.

Well then where is you evidence to refute what I posted KD? 

Was my comment about solicitation of a bribe constituting a crime BS? 

Was my comment about the definition of bribery BS? 

Which of my comments in this seed are complete BS KD? Be specific. 

Find any confirmation on your Solomon firing yet?

I already posted about their 'parting of ways', just like Bolton and Mattis and Coates and Tillerson; Solomon was forced out. 

 
 
 
CB
12.4  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12    4 weeks ago

Nancy Pelosi is into a lot of things these days as Speaker: "Appearances" is not a pursuit. I'd say I am shocked, but what I really want to know is:

WHY?! Kathleen WHY?!

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.1  Kathleen  replied to  CB @12.4    4 weeks ago

Why what?

 
 
 
CB
12.4.2  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12.4.1    4 weeks ago

Why do you write Speaker Nancy Pelosi is joking about bribery?

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.3  Kathleen  replied to  CB @12.4.2    4 weeks ago

I did not think she was joking about it, I think it’s a joke that she is going with that for impeachment. More like, well if this doesn’t work, I will try this then.

 
 
 
CB
12.4.4  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12.4.3    4 weeks ago

Okay, what would you do if you were Speaker Nancy Pelosi in this situation? She is not 'trying' anything. That kind of "speak" is republicans trash talk. Until charges are officially drawn up Speaker Nancy Pelosi is in the right to call out possible charges as they appear, evaporate, or stand (for trial). This is not complicated. Of course, jeerers-jeering is a thing too in these kind of settings. 

Still it does not mean you have to entertain poorly staged arguments meant for soundbite more than for substance, dear Kathleen. Again, what would you do if you were Speaker Nancy Pelosi in this situation?

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.4.5  dennis smith  replied to  CB @12.4.4    4 weeks ago

Okay, what would you do if you were Speaker Nancy Pelosi in this situation?

RESIGN

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.6  Kathleen  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.5    4 weeks ago

I was thinking that myself.  

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.7  Kathleen  replied to  CB @12.4.4    4 weeks ago

I would think for myself instead of what she is doing.

 
 
 
CB
12.4.8  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12.4.7    4 weeks ago

Think for yourself. In this situation, about doing what?

 
 
 
CB
12.4.9  CB   replied to  dennis smith @12.4.5    4 weeks ago

 Everybody look! Dennis got jokes! Nancy should resign for what exactly? Surely, she should not go off over weak soundbites!

 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.10  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.5    4 weeks ago

Why would she do that? Pelosi was elected overwhelmingly to represent her district and she is playing Trump like a fiddle. 

 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.11  Dulay  replied to  Kathleen @12.4.6    4 weeks ago
I was thinking that myself.  

Why? Don't you think that Pelosi is serving her constituents. 

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.12  Kathleen  replied to  CB @12.4.8    4 weeks ago

I just never cared for her even before Trump was in office. I am sure you understand what I mean, you feel the same way about Trump. 

 
 
 
CB
12.4.13  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12.4.12    4 weeks ago

Kathleen, I don't dislike Donald Trump because he is president, per se. My initial distaste, and that is all it was in 2012 following, of Donald Trump began when I realized that he was not going to accept Barack Hussein Obama as a legitimate president of the United States. Moreover, that he was using Barack as a foil to draw a loyal republican following to himself from off the sidelines.

I dislike Donald's attitude as a public 'servant.'This he is is not.

Public Service is a noble, decent, and humble service where a leader comes before this great people (with its storied past) and hopes to leave a good and solid mark. Now then, why would a leader deliberately want to be known throughout time as the "helter-skelter" president?

  1. Why does Trump outlandishly ruin reputations;
  2. looks down his nose at subordinates;
  3. brutally mocks reasonable and balanced advise from his "seniors" in government leadership (men and women dedicated to service);
  4. pals around with and warmly attends this nation's long-time rivals;
  5. seeks to turn our presidency into a hallowed place for self-dealing?

These are not compliments to republicanism as told by republicans. Why allow it in the party platform? Do you realize that Trump will run partially on negative values in 2020?

 Now that you have seen three whole years of Donald's presidential temperament, surely you can not praise such conduct in Donald anymore than you would consider it a plus coming out of me!

 
 
 
Kathleen
12.4.14  Kathleen  replied to  CB @12.4.13    4 weeks ago

Thanks for your opinion CB, have a good day.

 
 
 
CB
12.4.15  CB   replied to  Kathleen @12.4.14    4 weeks ago

You too! I only want the best for us all and you're included in that!

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.4.16  dennis smith  replied to  CB @12.4.9    4 weeks ago

My comment was not a joke. Only those blinded by their hatred of Trump fail to recognize she is no longer a leader as witnessed by over 3 years of not accomplishing what she says is necessary and that is to try to impeach the elected POTUS.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.4.17  Dulay  replied to  dennis smith @12.4.16    4 weeks ago

If your standard for failing as a leader is not accomplishing what you say is necessary, shall we review the many necessities that Trump has failed to accomplish? 

We'll have to do it over the next couple of days...

Oh and BTW, you might want to recognize that Pelosi has only been Speaker since Jan. 2019. 

 
 
 
CB
12.4.18  CB   replied to  dennis smith @12.4.16    4 weeks ago

It sounds like you are communicating in circles. Nancy Pelosi is not even going to consider resigning, thus your comment is bogus jest. Moreover, any further time we spend on it not humored, leaves me wanting more substance. Got any substance, Dennis?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
13  1stwarrior    4 weeks ago

256

 
 
 
Texan1211
14  Texan1211    4 weeks ago

Saw Pelosi on tv yesterday.

She seems to have painted the Democrats into a corner. 

With her declaration that the President committed bribery, what else is there for Dems to do BUT impeach him? Why go through with the sham of "inquiries" when the facts have been decided by Dems already?

If by some miracle enough Dems come to their senses and vote against impeachment, whatever will happen to poor old Nancy? She will have lost all credibility -- even among her own.

 
 
 
Tacos!
14.1  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @14    4 weeks ago
With her declaration that the President committed bribery, what else is there for Dems to do BUT impeach him?

Yeah, she's hilarious the way she has been accusing the president for almost three years and then yesterday she's simultaneously continuing to accuse while claiming we have to wait for the process to see what the facts reveal. Meanwhile, the press dutifully nods, uncritically takes notes, and obediently repeats her nonsense.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @14.1    4 weeks ago

Wait WHAT? Some here said that it was all good if his 'admitted actions might have been improper'. Let me see if I can find it...

Here it is:

All you need is the willingness to say that his admitted actions might have been improper.

Many have a willingness to say that Trump's admitted actions WERE improper. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
14.1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @14.1.1    4 weeks ago
Many have a willingness to say that Trump's admitted actions WERE improper. 

In their "opinion"...........and that's IT.

 
 
 
Tacos!
14.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @14.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yeah, you kinda missed the point. My point was that those people are willing to say that anything is improper whether it actually is or not. That's why we have so many bullshit scandals in the news.

Trump isn't even the only victim of this madness. The Left does it to their own all the time. Every day somebody is outraged over something that is totally ordinary because it boosts their self esteem to judge others.

I'm not trying to say anything about Trump or Biden. But you demand "evidence" for Biden that you have never needed for Trump.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.4  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.1.2    4 weeks ago
In their "opinion"...........and that's IT.

So you refuse to review the ACTUAL text messages and address their ACTUAL content. Got ya. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.3    4 weeks ago
Yeah, you kinda missed the point. My point was that those people are willing to say that anything is improper whether it actually is or not. 

Well if that was your point, you failed to make it. 

Trump isn't even the only victim of this madness.

Trump is a victim? Hilarious!

The Left does it to their own all the time. Every day somebody is outraged over something that is totally ordinary because it boosts their self esteem to judge others.

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

I'm not trying to say anything about Trump or Biden.

You may not be 'trying' but you HAVE. You claimed that Biden's 'own words' just might implicate him yet Trump is somehow a victim. Two statements that DO say 'something'. 

But you demand "evidence" for Biden that you have never needed for Trump.

Thanks for bringing that up. I asked for ONE iota of evidence against Biden and neither you nor anyone else has provide any.

As for evidence against Trump, unlike you and your fellow travelers, I have actually READ ALL of the documents that have been released about this issue along with tons of subject matter documentation. 

So it's pretty fucking clear that I'm not the one who doesn't need evidence, I am not the one that fails to acknowledge evidence and I am not the one that fails to answer questions about evidence. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
14.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dulay @14.1.4    4 weeks ago
So you refuse to review the ACTUAL text messages and address their ACTUAL content. Got ya.

The text messages were their opinion of what was supposedly happening. Were any of the text exchanges to or from Mr. Trump? NOPE.

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.7  Dulay  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @14.1.6    4 weeks ago
The text messages were their opinion of what was supposedly happening. Were any of the text exchanges to or from Mr. Trump? NOPE.

So let me get this straight. Is your posit that Perry, Mulvaney, Sondland, Volker, Pence and Giuliani were ALL working against the wishes of Donald Trump? 

Perhaps you could point to a statement, a tweet, a note written in crayon by Trump that lead you to that conclusion? 

 
 
 
Tacos!
14.1.8  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @14.1.5    4 weeks ago
Well if that was your point, you failed to make it.

Geez what a stupid response! OK, you're right. I didn't dumb it down enough so you could understand it. Now I have rephrased it for clarification. Do you finally get it now? Or do you need it explained to you a third way?

You may not be 'trying' but you HAVE.

You really have a hard time letting people speak for themselves, don't you? You seem to have an obsession with telling other people what they think and what they are really saying. That's pretty arrogant.

I asked for ONE iota of evidence against Biden and neither you nor anyone else has provide any.

We have his confession. That's an iota of evidence. Once again you make a claim that fails. Fail. Fail. Fail.

unlike you and your fellow travelers

You have no idea what I have done or read. You don't even know that I'm not traveling. Another Fail!

I am not the one that fails to acknowledge evidence and I am not the one that fails to answer questions about evidence

What a rich fantasy life.

 
 
 
Tacos!
14.1.9  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @14.1.7    4 weeks ago
Is your posit that Perry, Mulvaney, Sondland, Volker, Pence and Giuliani were ALL working against the wishes of Donald Trump? 

No, that's not what he said. You completely ignored what he said. Typical.

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.10  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @14.1.8    4 weeks ago
I didn't dumb it down enough so you could understand it.

Does trying to denigrate people make you feel like a big man Tacos!? 

Your comment isn't worthy of my time. 

Have fun. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14.1.11  JohnRussell  replied to  Dulay @14.1.10    4 weeks ago

If we try to put the best possible spin on the thoughts of some of these "conservatives" , we could ne kind and say they are confused. I don't see many of them trying to unconfuse themselves though, so all we can do is wait and see. 

Biden did not "confess" to anything.  He recounted that he had carried out the policies of the US government at the time and what was also the policy of much of Europe. 

When Trump asked for a quid pro quo in terms of investigating the Bidens , what US policy or European policy was he carrying out?  It was for himself. 

I'm still waiting for one of these people here to point out any other instance where Trump has ever been concerned about corruption. 

As Bill Maher said a couple weeks ago, "the only time Trump is concerned about corruption is when he's not in on it".

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1.12  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @14.1.11    4 weeks ago
If we try to put the best possible spin on the thoughts of some of these "conservatives" , we could ne kind and say they are confused.

Some are and some are hell bent on keeping them so. As I have said before, the ones that piss me off or those that intentionally gaslight their brethren. 

I don't see many of them trying to unconfuse themselves though, so all we can do is wait and see. 

IMHO, most of them are lost causes. Yet I have hopes that a large enough number WILL become 'enlightened' and decide that enough is enough. 

Biden did not "confess" to anything.  He recounted that he had carried out the policies of the US government at the time and what was also the policy of much of Europe. 

Yes and unfortunately, all too many of us have become accustom to the RW misrepresentation. The right bitches and whines about the left being 'outraged' all of the time but they forget that there was a time, before they sold their souls, that they would have been equally outraged about outright lies. 

When Trump asked for a quid pro quo in terms of investigating the Bidens , what US policy or European policy was he carrying out?  It was for himself.

Yes, they have to equivocate and claim that the POTUS gets to pick Ambassadors and make his/her own foreign policy. Of course, while doing so, they're desperate to ignore that NO government official, including the POTUS, can carry out an official action for CORRUPT purposes.  

I'm still waiting for one of these people here to point out any other instance where Trump has ever been concerned about corruption.

I'm still waiting for even one of them to give one iota of evidence that he was concerned about corruption in this case.  

As Bill Maher said a couple weeks ago, "the only time Trump is concerned about corruption is when he's not in on it".

If it's to Trump's benefit, it's all good as far as he and his sycophants are concerned. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

XDm9mm
Just Jim NC TttH
zuksam
lib50
Raven Wing
Phaedrus
Ender
Ed-NavDoc
MUVA
Ozzwald

KDMichigan
Sean Treacy
arkpdx


34 visitors