guilty

  
By:  john-russell  •  3 weeks ago  •  253 comments

guilty
This timeline indicates Trump knew on Sep 9th that Congress had received notice of the whistleblower compaint about the phone call to Zelensky, in other words he chose his words to Sondland as a "cover up". 

One of the Republican's major defenses on behalf of Trump , undoubtedly what they put forward as the "best" one, is that he told Gordon Sondland in a Sep. 9th phone call that there was no quid pro quo, and that he wanted "nothing" from Zelensky. 

-

Something else happened on Sep 9th. That was the day the whistleblower complaint was revealed to the House Intelligence committee. 


Sept. 9 — Atkinson, the inspector general of the intelligence community, notifies the House intelligence committee that he received a whistleblower’s complaint relating to an “urgent concern” on Aug. 12. He says he found the information credible, and sent “my determination of a credible urgent concern” along with a copy of the complaint to Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, who had seven days to forward the complaint to Congress. But, contrary to “past practice,” Maguire did not forward the complaint to Congress, believing “the allegations do not meet the definition of an ‘urgent concern’ under the [whistleblower] statute,” Atkinson writes. The inspector general says he will keep the committee apprised of his attempts to resolve the issue. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/the-whistleblower-complaint-timeline/

When Sondland spoke to Trump on Sep. 9th, and Trump told him "no quid pro quo", Trump knew that the 'law' was on his trail.  He was changing his story for eventual public consumption. 

According to this timeline , the inspector general had sent notice of the whistleblower complaint to Trump's Acting Director Of National Intelligence around Sep. 2.  and then that individual sat on it.  This timeline indicates Trump knew on Sep 9th that Congress had received notice of the whistleblower compaint about the phone call to Zelensky, in other words he chose his words to Sondland as a "cover up". 

When the Republicans claim Trump said "no quid pro quo" on Sep 9th, they are knowingly or unwitingly continuing the attempted coverup.  I say "attempted" because it is obvious. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

If you get the chance, go to You Tube or a podcast source and listen to the first half hour of Morning Joe from earlier today.   It is well worth the time for people who are interested in what is going on with the impeachment. 

They were talking about this Sep. 9th phone call between Trump and Sondland and refreshed my memory about when Trump would have learned about the whistleblower. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    3 weeks ago

NOPE!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @1.1    3 weeks ago

YES, GUILTY AS SIN

 
 
 
lady in black
1.1.2  lady in black  replied to  WallyW @1.1    3 weeks ago

Incorrect

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.1    3 weeks ago

NOPE

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @1.1.3    3 weeks ago

YUP!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

If we were in 1974 or 1984 , or any of these "back in the day" times,  I think it is likely Trump would have been forced to resign by now. It is because we live in this internet era of fake news and "alternate facts" and photoshop and virtual reality that he is able to merrily continue to bamboozle and have an entire political party fall behind him. 

The country has changed in that way and it is not a good thing. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.1  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

256

You're right John - what you're doing is NOT good for the country and you really need to understand that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    3 weeks ago

You are running out of time to reject Trump and Trumpism. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.1.2  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

You are running out of time to accept Trump and Trumpism. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
2.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @2.1.2    3 weeks ago
accept Trump and Trumpism. 

I will never accept lying and corruption as a norm of the presidency. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
If we were in 1974 or 1984 , or any of these "back in the day" times,  I think it is likely Trump would have been forced to resign by now.

He would never have been elected back then.  But all that changed in the 1990s.

The country has changed in that way and it is not a good thing. 

In 1999, William Bennett wrote a book called "The Death of Outrage".  Liberals lambasted him for it, but it turns out he was correct in many ways.

The sense that it is impossible to defend a moral high ground one has already ceded is actually a valid idea.  It's why church attendance across America has been falling for decades.

It is very difficult for Democrats/Liberals who passionately defended Bill Clinton to be taken seriously when they attack Donald Trump.  It will be completely impossible for Republicans who passionately defend Donald Trump to be taken seriously when they attack whoever the next outrageous Democrat is.

I think Donald Trump is a special kind of sleazy that only NY real estate developers can be.  But even if Schiff & Co are able to make the case for bribery, witness tampering and obstruction...the precedent was set 20 years ago that we don't actually remove presidents for that.  

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.1  bugsy  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    3 weeks ago
But even if Schiff & Co are able to make the case for bribery, witness tampering and obstruction...the precedent was set 20 years ago that we don't actually remove presidents for that.  

I think one of the best points made.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.2.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    3 weeks ago
the precedent was set 20 years ago that we don't actually remove presidents for that.  

I think trying to compare a President who lied about a blow job to a President who welcomes foreign interference in our elections as long as it was to favor himself, used congressional approved military funding for an ally to force that ally to capitulate with an attack on one of the Presidents political opponents, and 10 clear counts of obstruction arising from the investigation into Russian interference where 34 people surrounding Trump either plead guilty, been convicted or are under indictment along with a dozen Russian operatives. Trying to equate the two impeachments is like trying to compare someone who had 'dine-n-dashed', running out on a restaurant bill, and an Oceans 11 Casino heist.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    3 weeks ago
It is very difficult for Democrats/Liberals who passionately defended Bill Clinton to be taken seriously when they attack Donald Trump

No it's not,  Trump is orders of magnitude past Clinton in his behavior.  Orders of magnitude. 

Those who claim otherwise are bamboozlers and dissemblers. 

 
 
 
WallyW
2.2.4  WallyW  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    3 weeks ago

Whatever, but the outcome will be the same

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.5  r.t..b...  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2    3 weeks ago
But even if Schiff & Co are able to make the case for bribery, witness tampering and obstruction...the precedent was set 20 years ago that we don't actually remove presidents for that.  

Not the same set of circumstances so the precedent should not apply. That being said, we can expect the same result. He will likely be impeached in the House, the Senate will likely fail to convict, and he will run with the albatross of an impeachment hanging around his neck...and that is unprecedented. The 2020 election will be unlike any other, and not one that promises to bring out our best; from candidates, to the rhetoric, and to the sure to be contested result. Here's to sanity and civility rising from the ashes of the coming conflagration. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.5    3 weeks ago
Not the same set of circumstances so the precedent should not apply.

Meh.  Close enough that it probably will, though.

That being said, we can expect the same result. He will likely be impeached in the House, the Senate will likely fail to convict, and he will run with the albatross of an impeachment hanging around his neck...and that is unprecedented.

True.  It will be interesting to see.  He's such an inherently polarizing person anyway, it's going to be tough to isolate that variable, so I'm not sure what we'll learn overall.

The 2020 election will be unlike any other, and not one that promises to bring out our best; from candidates, to the rhetoric, and to the sure to be contested result.

My concern is less about 2020 and more about whether or not we're putting ourselves on a path to increasingly worse situations.  

Here's to sanity and civility rising from the ashes of the coming conflagration. 

I do hope so.  I confess my optimism is waning.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.3    3 weeks ago
No it's not,

It is.  And your posts are a prime example.

  Trump is orders of magnitude past Clinton in his behavior.  Orders of magnitude. 

We all know you think so.  But from the perspective of potential articles of impeachment, that does not appear to be likely.

Those who claim otherwise are bamboozlers and dissemblers. 

Sure.  Riiiiiight.   We get it.  Anybody who dares introduce reason or moderation into your blind fits of bias is the enemy.  *eyeroll*

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
I think trying to compare a President who lied about a blow job to a President who welcomes foreign interference in our elections as long as it was to favor himself, used congressional approved military funding for an ally to force that ally to capitulate with an attack on one of the Presidents political opponents, and 10 clear counts of obstruction arising from the investigation into Russian interference where 34 people surrounding Trump either plead guilty, been convicted or are under indictment along with a dozen Russian operatives. Trying to equate the two impeachments is like trying to compare someone who had 'dine-n-dashed', running out on a restaurant bill, and an Oceans 11 Casino heist.

So are they going to impeach him for obstruction related to the Mueller investigation?  I haven't heard anybody talking about it.

No?

So at the end of the day, if you're lucky, you're going to get impeachment articles on attempted bribery (not actual bribery, because the Bidens were never investigated) and witness tampering and/or obstruction for telling his people not to testify.  The bribery itself is going to be weak because both Ukranian presidents deny they felt any pressure to investigate Bidens.

That's less than they proved on Clinton.

Personally, do I think Trump is more corrupt than Clinton....yeah...probably so.  But as Bennett pointed out 20 years ago, when you accept one level of corruption, you put yourself on a slippery slope from which it's very difficult to return.  Fortunately, GWB and BO were men of very high integrity.  But we don't always elect those.  Sometimes we go for a Nixon or an LBJ or a Warren Harding.  And those guys are going to get worse and worse as the years go by.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.2.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.6    3 weeks ago
He's such an inherently polarizing person anyway, it's going to be tough to isolate that variable, so I'm not sure what we'll learn overall.

We'll learn just how much we are willing to excuse in lack of character in the name of a steady economy. Disgusting in the short-term, potentially dangerous in the long-term.

 
 
 
katrix
2.2.10  katrix  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.8    3 weeks ago
And those guys are going to get worse and worse as the years go by.

Especially as every President lately - even the ethical ones  - seem to keep expanding the power of the executive branch, and making other changes to benefit their party while they're in power. Then the other party gets the power, and much hand-wringing ensues.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.11  Tacos!  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.2.2    3 weeks ago
foreign interference in our elections

I really feel the use of this phrasing is grossly inaccurate. I could wish that people wouldn't use it, but my wishes won't make it so.

If someone is actually blocking someone from voting; or corrupting the count of real votes cast, etc., I would consider that "interference in our election."

Sharing information in a world with internet, hundreds of TV channels, world wide instant communications, computers - you get the idea - is an everyday occurrence. The way people are using this phrasing these days, literally anything could be - and is - called "interference with our elections."

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.11    3 weeks ago

You're wrong.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.13  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.12    3 weeks ago
You're wrong.  

How do you know ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.14  Jack_TX  replied to  r.t..b... @2.2.9    3 weeks ago
We'll learn just how much we are willing to excuse in lack of character in the name of a steady economy. Disgusting in the short-term, potentially dangerous in the long-term.

Maybe.  I think a lot of that will have to do with who runs against him.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.15  Jack_TX  replied to  katrix @2.2.10    3 weeks ago
Especially as every President lately - even the ethical ones  - seem to keep expanding the power of the executive branch, and making other changes to benefit their party while they're in power. Then the other party gets the power, and much hand-wringing ensues.

Maybe so.  I dunno.

I trace a lot of this back to the passage of the ACA, and the resultant rise of the Tea Party.  So many more people are now angry and so many more are willing to adopt idiotic and extremist points of view.

So naturally there is a concern that if your team is not in charge, the other team is chomping at the bit to screw you over.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.16  Jack_TX  replied to  Tacos! @2.2.11    3 weeks ago
I really feel the use of this phrasing is grossly inaccurate. I could wish that people wouldn't use it, but my wishes won't make it so.

If someone is actually blocking someone from voting; or corrupting the count of real votes cast, etc., I would consider that "interference in our election."

Sharing information in a world with internet, hundreds of TV channels, world wide instant communications, computers - you get the idea - is an everyday occurrence. The way people are using this phrasing these days, literally anything could be - and is - called "interference with our elections."

It's not election interference until your side loses the election.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.17  bugsy  replied to  It Is ME @2.2.13    3 weeks ago
How do you know ?

She doesn't.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.18  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.15    3 weeks ago
I trace a lot of this back to the passage of the ACA, and the resultant rise of the Tea Party. 

The 'Tea Party' started before Obama was inaugurated and hit the streets 4 days later. It didn't 'result' from the passage of the ACA in 2010.

History and facts matter. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @2.2.18    3 weeks ago
The 'Tea Party' started before Obama was inaugurated and hit the streets 4 days later. It didn't 'result' from the passage of the ACA in 2010. History and facts matter. 

You will notice (well....you won't notice, but most people will) that I used the phrase "rise of the Tea Party" and not "formation of the Tea Party".

Do you understand the difference? 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.20  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.19    3 weeks ago
Do you understand the difference? 

Oh, please. The pretense that the TP was somehow a grassroots movement has been debunked long ago. The Kochs and Army birthed it and it was fully funded for battle the day Obama took office. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.21  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.2.18    3 weeks ago

The Tea Party rose up to oppose ACA and the whole process.  We fought it with all we had and still oppose it.  I joined the Tea Party in March 2009 and still consider myself affiliated with it.  Proud to be a 10 + year TEA Party member. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.22  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.2.20    3 weeks ago

It was 100% pure grass roots.  I was part of it.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.23  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @2.2.21    3 weeks ago

Is that why y'all called yourselves the T axed E nough A lready Party? 

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.24  Dulay  replied to  Heartland American @2.2.22    3 weeks ago
It was 100% pure grass roots.  

Right Xx, the Koch didn't spend millions and Dick Army didn't organize  a 'grassroots' cabal. All of those buses came from all those pennies you and your brethren scrapped together to support the cause. /s

Seriously, it's history and everyone knows the truth.

I was part of it.  

Ya, you're a part of the 'State of Jefferson' too Xx. 

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.25  MUVA  replied to  Dulay @2.2.24    3 weeks ago

Talk about conspiracy theories you are the king ,jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif Mueller hasn't  got nothing on you. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.26  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @2.2.25    3 weeks ago

No Mueller has plenty on Trump. 

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.2.27  KDMichigan  replied to  Dulay @2.2.26    3 weeks ago
No Mueller has plenty on Trump.

If Mueller had plenty on President Trump we would not be going though this snowflake pacifying circus that the left is eating up right now. The polls are showing that America is getting tired of the Democrats charade.

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.2.28  Texan1211  replied to  KDMichigan @2.2.27    3 weeks ago

True!

No need for Democrats to conduct a circus when the Great Mueller gave them all they claim to need.

Wonder what the hold-up is?

 
 
 
KDMichigan
2.2.29  KDMichigan  replied to  Texan1211 @2.2.28    3 weeks ago
Wonder what the hold-up is

There is no hold up. Just a failed Left wing con job.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.30  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.2.24    3 weeks ago

There were two tea party movements back then.  The grassroots TEA Party patriots and a GOP establishment group that tried but failed to co opt out movement.  It was the Tea party patriots that ultimately led to the alternative candidates Cruz, Carson, Trump In 2015/2016.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.2.31  Heartland American  replied to  Dulay @2.2.24    3 weeks ago

I’m a part of that movement as well.  SOJ51!

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.32  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @2.2.20    3 weeks ago
Oh, please. The pretense that the TP was somehow a grassroots movement has been debunked long ago. The Kochs and Army birthed it and it was fully funded for battle the day Obama took office. 

And again you attempt to invent a point I never even mentioned.  Why is it that you have such difficulty discussing things people have actually said instead of things you wish they had said?  Are you only capable of debating successfully against extremist views?  Seriously, if you lack the intelligence to consider moderate ideas you probably should stick to debating extremists and ideologues.  

The Tea Party was a tiny group and was failing to gain traction in all but the most extremely conservative places....until the Affordable Care Act drove the largest midterm reversal in 70 years.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.33  Tessylo  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.32    3 weeks ago

The [tremoved] were an astroturf movement funded in large part by the Koch brothers.  As usual Jack, [removed]

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.34  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.33    3 weeks ago

Wrong CNN is not your friend.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.35  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.2.34    3 weeks ago

You are incorrect as usual.

I don't watch CNN.  

 
 
 
MUVA
2.2.36  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.35    3 weeks ago

So you are more of  the morning joe with the ugly ho type.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2.2.37  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @2.2.36    3 weeks ago

No.

 
 
 
bugsy
2.2.38  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @2.2.35    3 weeks ago
I don't watch CNN.  

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSixx1g3Ijzghbc_QYbmAO

 
 
 
It Is ME
2.2.39  It Is ME  replied to  bugsy @2.2.17    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.2.40  Tacos!  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.32    3 weeks ago
And again you attempt to invent a point I never even mentioned.  Why is it that you have such difficulty discussing things people have actually said instead of things you wish they had said?

That's the truth. And it never ends.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.41  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.32    3 weeks ago
And again you attempt to invent a point I never even mentioned. 

You cited the 'rise of the Tea Party' and I stated that the were fully formed and funded when Obama took office.

That isn't 'inventing a point', that's debunking yours. 

It's a historical FACT that Freedom works, Americans for Prosperity and dontGO birthed and funded the Tea Party. They used their member list to organize 'grassroots' websites and tax day Tea Party rallies which started in FEBRUARY of 2009. By April 2009 there were HUNDREDS of such rallies. Freedom works had been doing the 'tax day' rallies for years, they just rebranded them. NONE of that had a fucking thing to do with the ACA. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.42  Jack_TX  replied to  Dulay @2.2.41    3 weeks ago
You cited the 'rise of the Tea Party' and I stated that the were fully formed and funded when Obama took office.

Still pretending you don't understand the difference.  Or maybe you actually don't understand.  I'm really not sure which is sadder.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.2.43  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.32    3 weeks ago

I think both you and Dulay are a little off track on this one. 

Tea Party movement | Definition, Beliefs, & Facts | Britannica

Feb 19, 2009  · The catalyst for what would become known as the Tea Party movement came on February 19, 2009, when Rick Santelli, a commentator on the business-news network CNBC, referenced the   Boston Tea Party   (1773) in his response to   Pres . Barack Obama ’s mortgage relief plan.

-

Rick Santelli, a chain smoker who reported for CNBC from the Chicago Board Of Trade, went into a famous rant one afternoon after the new president Obama had said something about helping out people who went in over their heads on their mortgages when the banks collapsed in 2008. 

Santelli took a "fuck em" approach , and went off screaming something along nthe lines of "the makers and the takers". He said he wanted to organize a "tea party" like rally at one of Chicago's harbors in a week or two from then, and in the wake of the publicity that Santelli's rant got on You Tube etc the "tea party movement" began to sprout in various locations across the country.  Tea party rallies usually contained racist signs about Obama and examples of the despicable "birther" movement. 

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.44  Dulay  replied to  Jack_TX @2.2.42    3 weeks ago
I'm really not sure which is sadder.

Your comment. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
2.2.45  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.43    3 weeks ago

I remember the day.  I watched it live.  I thought he had lost his mind and was about to be fired.

However.....

Most people didn't take the Tea Party seriously back then.  The Tea Party held very few if any seats in congress.

The catalyst that made them a national force was the Affordable Care Act.  

 
 
 
Dulay
2.2.46  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @2.2.43    3 weeks ago
I think both you and Dulay are a little off track on this one. 

Yet in the link you posted, Santelli admits that he had nothing to do with actually organizing anything. As I said, Freedom works already has the 'tax day tea party' rallies up and running by Feb. 2009. They just rebranded their big bucks anti-government operations. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.3  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago
If we were in 1974 or 1984 , or any of these "back in the day" times,  I think it is likely Trump would have been forced to resign by now.

If we're talking about a regular career politician, I think it's more likely we would have never found out about it at all, and even if we had, few would care.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @2.3    3 weeks ago

You're kidding right? A plethora of laws were passed because of Nixon's actions and then after Watergate to keep this shit from happening again. Yesterday, they talked about one of them, the Impoundment act. 

Yet as Fiona Hill said today: "Here we are". 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
2.4  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

IMO the worse thing ever to happen with politics is social media.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
2.4.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.4    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_28_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.4.2  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @2.4    3 weeks ago
the worse thing ever to happen with politics is social media

It's pretty bad. It might be #1, although I think 24-hour news and internet news and blogs are close competitors. In all cases, the trend of hasty, uncritical, unverified information that costs next to nothing to produce has certainly done a lot of damage.

 
 
 
dennis smith
2.5  dennis smith  replied to  JohnRussell @2    3 weeks ago

So now you admit we live in an era of fake news. Trump has been spot on about that and finally you agree.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3  The Magic Eight Ball    3 weeks ago

OMG ya cracked the case... LOL

ya should have informed vindman

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1  bugsy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    3 weeks ago

Wait, wait, wait...Vindman was hailed by the left as a "patriot" and "hero" after his testimony. Was Vindman lying?

Let's see how JR spins this one.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.1    3 weeks ago

Spins what?

Stay on topic or you may have your comments removed. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
3.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  bugsy @3.1    3 weeks ago

What needs spun ?

How the hell can Vindman confirm what the other party "Felt" >>>??????

Keep grasping at straws then throw them in the oceamn so maybe you coud kill some sealife as well, cause you fellows ain't seeing life as swell, as any with a thinkin brain cell

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  bugsy @3.1    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    3 weeks ago

[Removed

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.5  bugsy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @3.1.5    3 weeks ago

[Removed (meta)]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  bugsy @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
removed for context

I am pretty confident that there are not a lot of people here who flag less than I do, and I do not flag you. 

I'm not sure why you're comment is not deleted, but I have no say in the moderation. 

 
 
 
bugsy
3.1.8  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
and I do not flag you.

Never said you did.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.9  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @3.1    3 weeks ago
Wait, wait, wait...Vindman was hailed by the left as a "patriot" and "hero" after his testimony. Was Vindman lying?

No, the source and the headline are lying and the member who posted it is propagating that lie. 

Let's see how JR spins this one.

First I note the personal comment. Then I will say that John doesn't need to spin anything. All any thinking person has to do is actually watch the video for themselves to recognize that the source and the headline misrepresent what Vindman said in his testimony. 

But hey, when all they've got is bullshit, I guess they feel the need to disseminate bullshit. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.11  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.6    3 weeks ago
What did I say?  Y'all are immune to 'moderation' but obviously I'm not. 

jrSmiley_90_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.10    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    3 weeks ago

Vindman is not the topic of this article. Any comments about Vindman will be subject to removal. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.1  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago

that's okay with me...  delete anything ya don't like... my point has already been made.

cheers :)

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.1    3 weeks ago

[Removed

 
 
 
bugsy
3.2.3  bugsy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
my point has already been made.

Mine too...

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  bugsy @3.2.3    3 weeks ago

What point?

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago

See John?  I told you, theirs weren't removed but mine were.  What a surprise!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.2.6  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

does seem a little strange

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.2.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

Tess,

Your comment came with an insult. That is why it was removed.

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.8  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    3 weeks ago
See John?  I told you, theirs weren't removed but mine were.  What a surprise !

Not really ! jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.9  Tessylo  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.7    3 weeks ago
'Tess,
Your comment came with an insult. That is why it was removed.'
'Stay on topic or you may have your comments removed.'

'Fat chance of that I think.  Certain folks seem to be immune to 'moderation'

why was this one removed?

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.10  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @3.2    3 weeks ago
Vindman is not the topic of this article.

But Lt. Col. Vindman  was the MOST important "Non-Whistleblower" Witness for the Democrats on the "IntelligencejrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif " committee so far ! 

His "Feelings" supposedly meant more than anyone's ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

In Fact....he was told to "Shutup" by Schiffty, when he started "Naming Names" ! jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

He's gotta be the Most Important …… "Witness" ……. LIKE …..... EVER ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.11  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
my point has already been made.

Actually, it wasn't. Apologies, John, but here's what many on the right don't seem to grasp. Vindman's testimony that Trump wanted Ukraine to announce the investigation very publicly, but didn't care if it actually happened, is another case for why it was just for Trump's personal political gain. If it were really intended to stamp out corruption or whatever BS excuse Trump makes up, he'd actually have wanted the investigation to happen. But all he apparently cared about was hurting Biden's credibility, and with today's social media and right-wing conspiracy sites, the announcement alone would have done the trick.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
3.2.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.9    3 weeks ago
why was this one removed?

If I had a guess, I would say because it (both actually) follows a pattern of incessant whining about "unfair moderation". A slam to the owner and mods on this site isn't a very wise move since they offer you the chance at civility, opinion, and commentary in THEIR domain.

I may be..............no, no I'm not.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.13  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3.2.12    3 weeks ago

[Removed]

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.14  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.13    3 weeks ago
I don't give a flying fuck about what your opinion is on the matter. 

Ditto.

But YOU are fun ! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.15  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.2.14    3 weeks ago

Well I wasn't talking to you either but the same applies.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.2.16  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.15    3 weeks ago
Well I wasn't talking to you either but the same applies. 

That just Hurt....really deep down in my soul ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2.17  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.5    3 weeks ago

I can relate.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.2.18  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.1    3 weeks ago
my point has already been made.

The only point you made was that you're willing to post video link headlines that are lies. 

 
 
 
Dulay
3.3  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3    3 weeks ago

Wow, the headline says one thing and the video shows another. Not surprised considering the source. 

 
 
 
Foy 49
3.3.1  Foy 49  replied to  Dulay @3.3    3 weeks ago

Glad you caught that sir; the video seems to make the opposite point .

 
 
 
MUVA
4  MUVA    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @4    3 weeks ago

and? 

The point of the article is that when Trump said no quid pro quo to Sondland Trump was trying to cover his tracks. At that point he knew there was a whistleblower. 

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1    3 weeks ago

He asked Trump what he wanted he said nothing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

He said he wanted nothing because he knew he had been caught. It's not rocket science. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
'He asked Trump what he wanted he said nothing.'

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
The point of the article is that when Trump said no quid pro quo to Sondland Trump was trying to cover his tracks. At that point he knew there was a whistleblower. 

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.5  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
He said he wanted nothing because he knew he had been caught. It's not rocket science. 

Exactly. One of the deep state Russian trolls in here actually said that those handwritten notes Trump wrote yesterday covered his ass .... honestly, how did we get to the point where so many Americans are this fucking stupid and fact-averse, and support our enemies more than our country?

 
 
 
bugsy
4.1.6  bugsy  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
He said he wanted nothing because he knew he had been caught.

So, not only does Trump live rent free in your mind 24/7, but because of that, you can read his mind too?

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.7  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
He said he wanted nothing because he knew he had been caught.

I thought Schiffties Eyes were actually gonna pop out of his head when he said …. the same thing.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
4.1.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

First it was "I want a favor." and now it is "I want nothing."  Trump can not have it both ways.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1.9  katrix  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @4.1.8    3 weeks ago

His fans live in a delusional lala land, where no words actually matter and facts don't exist.

 
 
 
dennis smith
4.1.10  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @4.1.5    3 weeks ago

Once the dems lose the house in 2020 the problem you point to will go away.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.11  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @4.1.1    3 weeks ago

Just tack that lie on the end of the ever lengthening list of Trump lies. I'm sure there have been more this morning posted on his twitter account. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4    3 weeks ago

Before he changed his tune so he wouldn't go to the pokey for perjury.  

Get with the program MUVA.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.2.1  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @4.2    3 weeks ago

It was at the end of his testimony yesterday some of the last words he spoke so maybe it is you who should get with the program.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @4.2.1    3 weeks ago

Nah, the 'president', every word out of his shithole of a mouth is a lie, so you believe the turd, don't give a shit.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  MUVA @4    3 weeks ago

WATCH: Sondland recalls Trump saying there was ‘no quid pro quo’ | Trump impeachment hearings

Luckily, Trumpp's never been found to LIE

 
 
 
WallyW
5  WallyW    3 weeks ago

Still no high crimes or misdemeanors.

 
 
 
bugsy
5.1  bugsy  replied to  WallyW @5    3 weeks ago

We are starting to hear murmurs in the democrat ranks that maybe impeachment is not such a good idea, but censure could be the best route.

If that's the case, win win for Republicans and Trump. Democrats promised to impeach Trump even before he was inaugurated, and the lemmings sucked it up.

If they do not impeach, it would give Republicans plenty of ammunition to show how this whole episode was nothing more than a farce to impeach a President simply because they don't like him.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.1  1stwarrior  replied to  bugsy @5.1    3 weeks ago

AND because their fav LOST in a legal election.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.2  Jack_TX  replied to  bugsy @5.1    3 weeks ago
If they do not impeach, it would give Republicans plenty of ammunition to show how this whole episode was nothing more than a farce to impeach a President simply because they don't like him.

That really won't change if they do impeach him.

There is little evidence to suspect they're going to be able to establish that he did anything more than the last president who was impeached, and pretty fair evidence they're not going to be able to establish he did as much as the last president to be impeached. 

Very few people actually gave a shit about the president getting a blowie from an intern.  Far fewer can find Ukraine on a map. 

Nobody gives a tinker's damn about Ukraine.  If we did, there would have been marching in the streets when the Crimea was invaded.  Note: Even fewer people can find Crimea on a map, and probably 1 in 50 Americans actually realize it was invaded and taken from Ukraine.....despite the fact it was only 5 years ago.

This whole episode is a comprehensive exercise in rampaging bias confirmation.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.3  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.2    3 weeks ago
Nobody gives a tinker's damn about Ukraine.  If we did, there would have been marching in the streets when the Crimea was invaded.  Note: Even fewer people can find Crimea on a map, and probably 1 in 50 Americans actually realize it was invaded and taken from Ukraine.....despite the fact it was only 5 years ago.

This is all irrelevant to Trump's abusing his office. But thanks for letting us know that your comments are trivial. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
This is all irrelevant to Trump's abusing his office.

It's not so much "irrelevant" as total and complete bullshit. Only those completely ignorant of foreign policy don't "give a tinkers damn" about Ukraine. Sadly, that encompasses just about the entire Trump base. So a more accurate statement would have been "Trump and many of his dumb as rocks followers don't give a tinker's damn about Ukraine. If they did, there would have been marching in our streets when the Crimea was invaded.  Note: Even fewer of Trump fans can find Crimea on a map, and probably 1 in 500 Trump supporters actually realize it was invaded and taken from Ukraine.....despite the fact it was only 5 years ago."

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.5  Jack_TX  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago
This is all irrelevant to Trump's abusing his office. But thanks for letting us know that your comments are trivial.

You always pout when I'm right and you don't want to admit it.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.4    3 weeks ago
It's not so much "irrelevant" as total and complete bullshit.

*eyeroll*

Only those completely ignorant of foreign policy don't "give a tinkers damn" about Ukraine.

Which is most Americans.  When the place was being invaded and on the news daily, one in six Americans could find it on a map.  Washington Post survey.

Sadly, that encompasses just about the entire Trump base.

84% of Americans is "the Trump base"?  Or is your math as terrible as your estimation of the American educational system?

So a more accurate statement would have been "Trump and many of his dumb as rocks followers don't give a tinker's damn about Ukraine.

Riiiiight.  Because the black family in South Dallas that would vote for Satan himself over Trump....they're totally up to speed on Ukraine, NATO, Brexit, TPP, and the Syria/Turkey situation.  They're particularly well versed in the long-running tensions between India and Pakistan and the potential for global economic destabilization if things ever degenerated on the sub-continent.  Right.  Sure.  Oh for fuck's sake.  

This shit matters to you because you hate Trump and this helps you feel validated.  Nobody outside that camp gives a shit.  

Which is exactly how this all went in 1998.  Only the sides are reversed.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
5.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.4    3 weeks ago

Oops -

Now, Obama once again finds himself at a crossroads on another nation's escalating infighting, this time in the Ukraine. Thousands of Ukrainian demonstrators have staged protests since President Viktor Yanukovych backed away from a European Union trade deal in November, instead moving the country closer to Russia. The protests have escalated since, edging closer and closer to a full-scale civil war.

Once again, President Obama has taken a firm stance, threatening unspecified consequences should the violence escalate.

"We hold the Ukrainian government primarily responsible for making sure that it is dealing with peaceful protesters in an appropriate way," Obama said Wednesday. "We've also said we expect peaceful protesters to remain peaceful and we'll be monitoring very closely the situation, recognizing that with our European partners and the international community there will be consequences if people step over the line."

Once again, Obama has drawn a line in the sand, and once again it has been crossed.

https://theweek.com/articles/450482/obamas-red-line-moment-ukraine

Just goes to show you that Obama's administration didn't give a Tinker's damn either - until Joey forced Ukraine's hand with his bribery to withhold $1B already guaranteed by Congress.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

AND because their fav LOST in a legal election.

The only ones still screaming that the left cannot get over the 2016 election is the rightists using it as an excuse for trump's ridiculous behavior. Also, it's trump that was seeking even more investigations into the 2016 election....the truly sad part is he won the election, so why even more investigations and, why didn't he go after the Ukraine right after he was elected? Why did he wait almost three YEARS to pester the Ukraine about the 2016 election? Why did it coincide with Putin saying that Russia didn't mettle in our elections, it was the Ukraine? When it comes to foreign policy, virtually everything trump has done in one way or another benefits Russia. The Ukraine is one of our biggest allies, why the hell would they meddle in our elections to help trump win? That literally makes no sense at all. Add to that, there is not ONE intel agency on the planet that has said it was the Ukraine that meddled in our elections, they ALL say it was Russia. The fact that trump sides with Putin over ALL of our intel agencies should really alarm you. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
5.1.9  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

I would certainly agree that most Americans dont care about Ukraine. 

That fact is irrelevant to Trump wrong doing though. 

I dont pout, and dont know why you insist on imagining things. Your time would be better spent trying to produce relevant comments. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.8    3 weeks ago
The only ones still screaming that the left cannot get over the 2016 election...….

…… are the ones that had been hanging their hats on the "Mueller Investigation"(Lame jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif ), and now hanging their hats on some "Phone Call" to a foreign president that got what he wanted in the first place (OMG jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif ).

Now They " FEEL " they don't like it! jrSmiley_54_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.11  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.7    3 weeks ago

That comment is delusional. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @5.1.11    3 weeks ago
That comment is delusional. 

Blankies and Pacifiers should show those tanks "What For" ! jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_25_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.1.13  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  1stwarrior @5.1.1    3 weeks ago

But, but, but, they still won the the popular vote by three million votes....🤣

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5.1.14  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.3    3 weeks ago

Trump doesn't even know where PR is.

 
 
 
dennis smith
5.1.15  dennis smith  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5.1.14    3 weeks ago

How many states was it Obama said were in the US? Something like 57

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.16  Heartland American  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.5    3 weeks ago

The bottom line here

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.1.17  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.2    3 weeks ago

Once again, the thing the left just cannot get through their heads is that impeachment does not guarantee the removal from office they so depsperately crave. The GOP controlled Seanate is the only body that can do that and I seriously doubt they will. Three presidents have been impeached in the past. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were exonerated and remained in office. Richard M. Nixon was impeached and voluntarily resigned from office.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.1.18  Jack_TX  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.17    3 weeks ago

Nixon was never actually impeached.  He resigned first.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
5.1.19  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Jack_TX @5.1.18    3 weeks ago

You are quite correct. Impeachment proceedings had begun over the Watergate Scandal but he resigned before they were completed. My thanks for the clarification.

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.2  MrFrost  replied to  WallyW @5    3 weeks ago

But if he lied about a blowjob, that would be, right Wally? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
5.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @5.2    3 weeks ago
But if he lied about a blowjob, that would be

Ask Martha Stewart what happens when one lies under oath to the "Fed" ! jrSmiley_19_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.2  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @5.2    3 weeks ago
But if he lied about a blowjob, that would be, right Wally? 

If he lied under oath in a court case and/or congressional hearing?  Hell yes.  

That's called 'perjury'.

To my knowledge, Trump has yet to testify, so he has not had a chance to commit perjury.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
5.2.3  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.2    3 weeks ago

That's called 'perjury'.

To my knowledge, Trump has yet to testify, so he has not had a chance to commit perjury

yes, every one accused of so many damn crimes, is obviously innocent.

hey Jack, do you truly feel that you are impervious to melting snow, because you get it wet ?

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.2.3    3 weeks ago
yes, every one accused of so many damn crimes, is obviously innocent.

I view Trump very much the way I viewed Bill Clinton.  There are FAR too many accusations and FAR too much history of poor character to presume he is wholly innocent.  Both men seem to believe the law only applies to little people.

The question, however, is "guilty of what, specifically"?

I don't think there is sufficient evidence (yet) of bribery, treason, or another high crime or misdemeanor.  I think there is overwhelming evidence that Donald Trump is an individual completely devoid of character or morality. But frankly we've known that since the 1970s.  That's why I voted against him.

But being a sleazeball is not illegal by itself, and the American people knew what he was when they elected him.  If we're talking about removing a duly elected president, we need much more convincing evidence.

 
 
 
JBB
5.2.5  JBB  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.4    3 weeks ago

Besides your equivalencie being false Bill Clinton retired nineteen years ago and Trump is in power today...

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.2.6  r.t..b...  replied to  Jack_TX @5.2.4    3 weeks ago
If we're talking about removing a duly elected president, we need much more convincing evidence.

Agree with much of your post, but we may disagree on the evidence reaching the threshold of being worthy of impeachment. I believe it has. The abuse of power is rather clear as he used his position to exert pressure on a foreign entity to instigate investigations into a political opponent. Using his personal attorney to circumvent the State Department is evidence enough that his personal interests superseded those of our nation. The House will likely impeach and the Senate will have the opportunity to hold their own hearings. The actions, at the very least warrant a thorough investigation and the system, partisan shills aside, is working as intended. Let it continue to conclusion. 

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.7  Jack_TX  replied to  JBB @5.2.5    3 weeks ago
Besides your equivalencie being false

*eyeroll*   Sure.  Bill Clinton was an honest guy.  Riiiight.

Bill Clinton retired nineteen years ago and Trump is in power today...

Hence my use of past tense.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
5.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  r.t..b... @5.2.6    3 weeks ago
Agree with much of your post, but we may disagree on the evidence reaching the threshold of being worthy of impeachment.

Disagreement with civility.  Maybe there is hope for America yet.  

I believe it has.

I can respect that.

The abuse of power is rather clear as he used his position to exert pressure on a foreign entity to instigate investigations into a political opponent. Using his personal attorney to circumvent the State Department is evidence enough that his personal interests superseded those of our nation. The House will likely impeach and the Senate will have the opportunity to hold their own hearings. The actions, at the very least warrant a thorough investigation and the system, partisan shills aside, is working as intended. Let it continue to conclusion. 

Well....we really don't disagree very much at all, so maybe I was overly exuberant earlier.

I have zero problems with an investigation.  I had zero problems with the Meuller investigation, BTW. 

I also have zero problems with a Biden investigation, despite the fact that lots of people close to that situation say he did nothing wrong.  I don't have any problem making that official one way or another, considering what's at stake.

My personal view on the evidence I've seen so far is that it's not conclusive enough to warrant removal of a US President.  Operative phrase..."so far".  That view may change as more information becomes available.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6  It Is ME    3 weeks ago

"guilty"

Because Ambassador Gordon " He did but he didn't " Sondland ….. did and didn't say so ? jrSmiley_103_smiley_image.jpg

Democrats are hanging their hats on their usual …"I voted for it before I didn't".... Shit again ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

That's worked well before. jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  It Is ME @6    3 weeks ago

No gobbledygook please. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
No gobbledygook please.

Butt....Butt....that's what this impeachment hearing is all about...….Just Plain ICKINESS ! jrSmiley_50_smiley_image.gif

Just look at the Title of the article, compared to Sondland's actual "He did and didn't" testimony !

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1    3 weeks ago
'No gobbledygook please.'

Again, good luck with that!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.2    3 weeks ago
Again, good luck with that!

With What ? 

Did you hear a different Gordan Testimony too ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.1.5  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.3    3 weeks ago
Did you hear a different Gordan Testimony too ?

He said there was a quid pro quo, (investigate the Bidens for ~400 million in military aid). Watched the entire testimony, or did you not hear that part? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.5    3 weeks ago
He said there was a quid pro quo,

And then said there wasn't.

I guess you missed that part. jrSmiley_46_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @6    3 weeks ago
He did but he didn't

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.1  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    3 weeks ago

Didn't see Rudy at the hearing.

Maybe try something …… really Impressive for a change ?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
Maybe try something …… really Impressive for a change ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.3  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.2    3 weeks ago

And all by yourself ?

 
 
 
MrFrost
6.2.4  MrFrost  replied to  It Is ME @6.2.1    3 weeks ago
Didn't see Rudy at the hearing.

After incriminating trump on national tv...........AGAIN, he has gone into hiding, probably trying to figure out how he is going to keep himself out of prison. 

512

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.2.5  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.4    3 weeks ago

That's Cheap.

"Dementia Joes" son get's waaaaaaay more than that for being on a "Board" He (admitted) "DOESN'T KNOW SHIT" about anything the company does !

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.6  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    3 weeks ago

I could have gone all day without seeing his toad face.

 
 
 
dennis smith
6.2.7  dennis smith  replied to  MrFrost @6.2.4    3 weeks ago

Another "probably" comment, fits in well with hearsay, maybe, could have been,  I thought,  seems to me, etc. Time for a new magic 8 ball or ouija board.

 
 
 
Jack_TX
6.2.8  Jack_TX  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    3 weeks ago

All of those things heavily depend on what the definition of "is" is.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.3  r.t..b...  replied to  It Is ME @6    3 weeks ago
Because Ambassador Gordon " He did but he didn't " Sondland ….. did and didn't say so ?

..tying yourself up in a 'Gordian [k]not'...so to speak.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.3.1  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @6.3    3 weeks ago
tying yourself up in a 'Gordian [k]not' so to speak

Democrats are still rolling their "Yarn" up in a "Spittle" ball. I just report.... What was "ACTUALLY" said ! !

 
 
 
MrFrost
7  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

Biden announced his presidential run on April 25th, ~2 weeks later, trump spit out his conspiracy theory that the Biden's did "something" in the Ukraine....back in 2014... 

So why did trump wait almost 3 years to push his conspiracy theory? Naw, i'm sure that the fact that trump pushed his conspiracy theory just weeks after Biden announced his presidential run was just a coincidence...[eye roll] /s

 
 
 
MrFrost
8  MrFrost    3 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
bugsy
9  bugsy    3 weeks ago

Here is a good question.

Id democrats decide that censure will be the answer to all this, what will be the liberal/democrat response.

Maybe some of our liberals/democrats on here can give some insight.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10  Dean Moriarty    3 weeks ago

I'm not a fortune teller and don't know if he will be removed but there is some encouraging signs coming from the odds makers. 

800

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1  MrFrost  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10    3 weeks ago

Pretty funny, the red line looks like trumps approval ratings. 

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
10.1.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  MrFrost @10.1    3 weeks ago

I'm not seeing that. 

800

 
 
 
MrFrost
10.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10.1.1    3 weeks ago

It was a joke Dean, lighten up. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11  Nerm_L    3 weeks ago

Gordon Sondland confirmed there wasn't a cover up, there weren't 'irregular' contacts with the Ukrainian government, and that the quid pro quo was about exchanging political favors.  The whole story is about politics which isn't really that significant.  Democrats have only identified a political crime and everyone understands that politicians skirt legal limitations on political activity all the time.  Democrats are just as politically dirty as are Republicans.  The last Democratic candidate for President demonstrated that.

So when are Democrats going to vote on articles of impeachment?  My guess is there will never be a vote.  If Democrats vote to impeach then Democrats lose control over the political narrative.  The House voting to impeach Trump will hand control of the political narrative to Senate Republicans during an election.  Democrats will be in a defensive position during the election; Republicans will be in a position to use impeachment against Democrats.  That doesn't seem like a winning strategy.

The understory is more interesting.  Trump obviously does not believe Ukraine is vitally important to the security of the United States.  And no one is making the case for why Ukraine should be considered vitally important.  The interesting battle is between a technocratic bureaucracy that is attempting to make Ukraine important for national security and a President who doesn't see it that way.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @11    3 weeks ago
Gordon Sondland confirmed there wasn't a cover up, there weren't 'irregular' contacts with the Ukrainian government, and that the quid pro quo was about exchanging political favors. 

The president of the United States is not allowed to trade aid to Ukraine for a political favor.  That is WHY he is being impeached. Your comment ignores reality in order to make your own quirky point concerning your perceptions of politics. 

Trump's Sep 9 claim that he doesnt want a quid pro quo is self serving hogwash considering he had recently learned of the existence of a whistleblower concerning his call with Zelensky. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 weeks ago
That is WHY he is being impeached. 

Really?

And what were the results of the vote to impeach? Did the Democrats take some secret vote that you alone are privy to?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
11.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 weeks ago

And the Vice President of the U.S. in 2015 is not allowed to trade $1B in aid to Ukraine for a political favor to fire someone he doesn't like and who was getting way too close to showing the world that the VP's son was laundering money through the corporation he worked for.

Why is Biden's, proven, on tape, self-divulged confession so politically correct for the Dems/Libs in Congress?????

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.3  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @11.1.2    3 weeks ago
And the Vice President of the U.S. in 2015 is not allowed to trade $1B in aid to Ukraine for a political favor to fire someone he doesn't like and who was getting way too close to showing the world that the VP's son was laundering money through the corporation he worked for. Why is Biden's, proven, on tape, self-divulged confession so politically correct for the Dems/Libs in Congress?????

That comment is FALSE. 

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.4  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @11.1.2    3 weeks ago
And the Vice President of the U.S. in 2015 is not allowed to trade $1B in aid to Ukraine for a political favor to fire someone he doesn't like

Actually, the US puts pressure on other countries all the time to try to get them to do things that our in our national interest. It's a shame you can't tell the difference between national interests and Trump's personal gain; Trump is trying to convince everyone that what's good for him is all that matters, but that is not reality.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 weeks ago
'Your comment ignores reality in order to make your own quirky point concerning your perceptions of politics.'

Quirky?  You are far too kind sir.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.6  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.1    3 weeks ago
And what were the results of the vote to impeach?

When did the vote take place? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
11.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @11.1.3    3 weeks ago

And you are so WRONG!!!!!

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.8  MrFrost  replied to  1stwarrior @11.1.2    3 weeks ago

Why is Biden's, proven, on tape, self-divulged confession so politically correct for the Dems/Libs in Congress?????

Because Biden was acting in an official capacity for the USA with international support in an effort to stop corruption in the Ukraine. Trump was acting in his own self interests in trying to give his campaign an edge while forcing the Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. 

HUGE difference. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.9  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @11.1.4    3 weeks ago
It's a shame you can't tell the difference between national interests and Trump's personal gain

jrSmiley_40_smiley_image.gif

What did Trump "Personally Gain" ……… AGAIN ?

"Trump is trying to convince everyone that what's good for him is all that matters, but that is not reality."

Weird !

All I've heard from Trump, is that Trump wants the U.S. Citizen to gain, and that's ALL THAT MATTERS !

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.10  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.1    3 weeks ago
Really? And what were the results of the vote to impeach? Did the Democrats take some secret vote that you alone are privy to?

Why are you talking nonsense at me? 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11.1.11  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1    3 weeks ago
The president of the United States is not allowed to trade aid to Ukraine for a political favor.  That is WHY he is being impeached. Your comment ignores reality in order to make your own quirky point concerning your perceptions of politics. 

Which witness confirmed that the President withheld money for providing weapon systems to Ukraine as leverage to obtain a political favor? 

Don't try to put lipstick on the pig by calling it 'foreign aid'.  Trump is being accused of withholding military weapons in exchange for a political favor.  And Democrats are outraged that Trump would withhold military weapon systems from Ukraine.  Democrats want Ukraine to become a battle ground for another separatist conflict.  With friends like Democrats, Ukraine doesn't need enemies.

No one has explained why Ukraine is so very vital to the national security of the United States.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.8    3 weeks ago
Trump was acting in his own self interests in trying to give his campaign an edge

Then Biden is Screwed. jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.13  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @11.1.9    3 weeks ago
All I've heard from Trump, is that Trump wants the U.S. Citizen to gain, and that's ALL THAT MATTERS !

If you believe what Trump said, I will be happy to sell you some oceanfront property in Arizona. Trump has told over 13,000 lies since he's been elected, and has been famous for lying throughout his entire life.

What did Trump "Personally Gain" ……… AGAIN ?

What Trump attempted to personally gain was a smear against Biden to help his candidacy in the next election. Surely you have been following all the news about the impeachment hearings, at least enough to understand why they are happening.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
11.1.14  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.11    3 weeks ago
 Trump is being accused of withholding military weapons in exchange for a political favor. 

What aid do you think was being withheld? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @11.1.13    3 weeks ago
What Trump attempted to personally gain

So....Trump gained …… NOTHING ! jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

Got it ! jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.16  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @11.1.7    3 weeks ago
And you are so WRONG!!!!!

No 1st, no I'm not wrong and your own link proves it. 

Here's the link YOU posted: 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/25/heres-what-happened-with-the-bidens-and-ukraine/#4eea60b39387

As I stated earlier, this is the first statement in YOUR link:

President Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, repeatedly claimed that Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden engaged in corruption while the two had dealings in Ukraine.   But no evidence of corruption has ever been found⁠—here’s what actually happened:

Again, YOUR OWN LINK goes on to debunk the bullshit comments you've posted here.

Your comment is FALSE. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.10    3 weeks ago
Why are you talking nonsense at me? 

I am profoundly sorry that you consider me quoting your EXACT words to be nonsense, but, hey, when you're right, you're right!

 
 
 
katrix
11.1.18  katrix  replied to  It Is ME @11.1.15    3 weeks ago

What an idiotic comment. I guess you've never read about people charged with attempted murder? People who try to rob banks but don't get any money still get convicted. Attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime, even if no obstruction occurs (as was pointed out during the Mueller investigation). Attempting to do something wrong is still a bad thing, even if you don't manage to get away with it. Yeah, it's hilarious that Trump is in so much trouble and couldn't manage to pull off his illegal bullshit, but then he's never been very bright.

Idiotic emojis make stupid comments look even stupider, btw .

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.6    3 weeks ago
When did the vote take place? 

Read the posts and you will be able to see quite clearly that JR is the one you should be asking that question of--after all, HE is the one who said Trump was being impeached. I asked when the vote took place, as that is the only way I know of for an impeachment to take place.

Keep up!

 
 
 
It Is ME
11.1.20  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @11.1.18    3 weeks ago
What an idiotic comment.

WOW ! jrSmiley_97_smiley_image.gif

And I should stay civil with you after a SHIT Statement like that ? jrSmiley_26_smiley_image.gif

" Attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime"

And that's been proven ...... When ..... Where ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Nerm_L
11.1.21  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.14    3 weeks ago
What aid do you think was being withheld? 

FGM-148 Javelin missiles.  President Zelensky mentioned that in the now infamous phone conversation.

The FGM-148 Javelin missile system is an advanced man carried, fire and forget weapon used against armored vehicles.  Javelins are not appropriate or useful weapons for use against insurgent separatists in eastern Ukraine.  The United States is arming Ukraine for direct warfare against Russia.

The 'foreign aid' follows the status quo playbook to indirectly confront Russia in proxy states by arming governments that are incapable of conducting warfare on that scale.  According to the playbook, even more advanced weapons will be needed by Ukraine in the future. 

Democrats are outraged because Trump has interfered with process of progressively arming Ukraine with anti-missile systems, anti-aircraft systems, and, possibly, tactical nuclear weapons over the coming decades.  Naturally, since Ukraine will become engaged in a simmering standoff against Russia then Ukraine must form an alliance with the West.  Ukraine won't have sufficient capability to prevent a Russian invasion so Ukraine becomes dependent upon the western military, particularly the United States military.

 
 
 
MrFrost
11.1.22  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @11.1.19    3 weeks ago
And what were the results of the vote to impeach?

That's what you said. That's why I asked you. ESL?

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.23  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @11.1.22    3 weeks ago
That's what you said. That's why I asked you. ESL?

Oh, FFS.

Do I really need to explain fucking sarcasm now?

I'll come back tomorrow when I have sufficient time to explain it to you. I figure 2-3 hours minimum.

In any case, I am sorry you don't get it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.10    3 weeks ago
'Why are you talking nonsense at me?'

All she has?

 
 
 
Tessylo
11.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @11.1.18    3 weeks ago
'Idiotic emojis make stupid comments look even stupider, btw .'

When that's all someone has they tend to go full tilt.

 
 
 
bugsy
11.1.26  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @11.1.25    3 weeks ago
When that's all someone has they tend to go full tilt.

Says the queen of idiotic emojis

 
 
 
Texan1211
11.1.27  Texan1211  replied to  bugsy @11.1.26    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_13_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
11.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  bugsy @11.1.26    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
12  Tacos!    3 weeks ago
Trump told him "no quid pro quo", Trump knew that the 'law' was on his trail

So we should remove him because he pursued a goal and tried to conform to the law while doing it? Everybody does that every day. Doesn't anybody on the impeachment side ever feel like they might be trying a little too hard? I guess not.

 
 
 
katrix
12.1  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @12    3 weeks ago
So we should remove him because he pursued a goal and tried to conform to the law while doing it?

No, he tried to PRETEND he conformed to the law after he failed to conform to it and realized he had been caught. Nice attempt at a spin, though.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @12.1    3 weeks ago

Every president sets out to do something, find something out, accomplish a goal, etc. and in the process of doing it, is warned not to say things a certain way or take certain actions. They bump into regulations and protocols they didn't know were there. Sometimes the issue even gets taken to court and some judge tells them they can't do what they're doing.

In response to this, the president adjusts what he says or does. It doesn't usually become an impeachment scandal. However, when you have so many partisan people looking and hoping for a reason to justify impeachment, almost anything can qualify.

I can't take any part of this seriously because I have been hearing about impeaching Trump - for a hundred different reasons - non-stop since before he was even sworn in. Credibility for outrage died a long time ago.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.2  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    3 weeks ago
In response to this, the president adjusts what he says or does.

Except Trump, he doubles down. Trump goes from getting off on collusion with Russia one day to soliciting a bribe from Ukraine the next. 

 
 
 
katrix
12.1.3  katrix  replied to  Dulay @12.1.2    3 weeks ago

Well, what he did to Ukraine is good for Russia ... it's all related.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.4  Dulay  replied to  katrix @12.1.3    3 weeks ago

Dr. Hill is making that abundantly clear, at least for those of use not looking at it through Trumpster bias. 

 
 
 
katrix
12.1.5  katrix  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    3 weeks ago
Credibility for outrage died a long time ago.

You played right into Trump's hands. He knew that if he did enough outrageous things, a lot of people would end up tuning out, and his corrupt behavior would seem normal to them.

Of course, a lot of other people continue thinking that ethics and morality and legality are important, and don't let Trump's attempts at throwing shade work on us. As Americans, we can't let people like him make us complacent - because we then become complicit.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.1.6  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @12.1.5    3 weeks ago
As Americans, we can't let people like him make us complacent - because we then become complicit.

Bravo!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.1.7  r.t..b...  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    3 weeks ago
the president adjusts what he says or does.

The normal course of action in a normal administration in advancing a stated agenda. However, this administrations' attempts in  coercing foreign governments to advance a personal agenda, at the expense of public interests, is beyond the pale. History is rife with examples of the citizenry willfully turning a blind eye to the unacceptable; and history will once again be the ultimate judge in this instance. Credibility lies in the truth, and the truth will never die.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.7    3 weeks ago
However, this administrations' attempts in  coercing foreign governments to advance a personal agenda, at the expense of public interests

Really ?

"Asking" is now called "Coercion" ?

What American "Public" interest, did Trump expend ?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
12.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @12.1.2    3 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Luv yer pronouncements of unsubstantiated "opinionated facts" to get from one topic to another.

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.10  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @12.1.9    3 weeks ago

I understand 1st.

It's easier to make personal comments than address my replies to your allegations against Biden. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.11  Tacos!  replied to  katrix @12.1.5    3 weeks ago
You played right into Trump's hands.

Oh? Was Trump counting on lil ole me for something? I very much doubt it.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.12  Tacos!  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.7    3 weeks ago
this administrations' attempts in  coercing foreign governments to advance a personal agenda

Coercion? Who have they coerced?

And you say "attempts" plural. So there's more than one? What are you talking about?

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.13  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.1.2    3 weeks ago
soliciting a bribe from Ukraine

Wait a minute. So now Ukraine is bribing Trump? I thought it was supposed to be Trump who was bribing Ukraine. Which is it?

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.14  It Is ME  replied to  katrix @12.1.3    3 weeks ago
Well, what he did to Ukraine is good for Russia ... it's all related.

So the "Needed" Anti-Tank Missile thingies Ukraine actually received from Trump,  are good for "Russia" ?

Trump shoulda sent "Paper products" (Toilet paper) instead. It's more humane, and "Environmentally" hygenic ! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.13    3 weeks ago

Solicitation of a bribe, is bribery. Hope that answers your question. 

Now do you have a answer for mine? 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.1.16  r.t..b...  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.8    3 weeks ago
Really ?

Really.

I could 'ask' you to agree with me, but I have no influence to persuade you to do so. If however, your presence on this site was dependent on my support in opposing those that would censor you unconditionally, I may then have the power to 'coerce' you into saying you agree with me in all my assertions, whether in the best interests of the 'public' (this site) or just for my own personal gratification.

Purely hypothetical and also a metaphor...so take your time.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.16    3 weeks ago
Really. I could 'ask' you to agree with me, but I have no influence to persuade you to do so

I just asked 2 simple questions.

Maybe a second try to get a "Real' answer will be the charm ?

12.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.7    26 minutes ago

"Asking" is now called "Coercion" ?

What American "Public" interest, did Trump expend ?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.1.18  r.t..b...  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.17    3 weeks ago
Maybe a second try

....no javelins for you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.19  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.18    3 weeks ago
..no javelins for you.

It's a good thing you ain't Trump.

He actually hands those things out !

 
 
 
r.t..b...
12.1.20  r.t..b...  replied to  It Is ME @12.1.19    3 weeks ago
It's a good thing you ain't Trump.

Kinder words have never been proffered. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.1.21  It Is ME  replied to  r.t..b... @12.1.20    3 weeks ago
Kinder words have never been proffered.

But you "Digress"....I'm sure ! jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.22  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.1.15    3 weeks ago
Hope that answers your question

It definitely does not. You need to make clear who is doing what to whom and why. You can’t keep changing the story every week. Well, I guess you could, but so far it hasn’t done much for the credibility of the accusers.

Now do you have a answer for mine?

No because you haven’t asked me a question in this thread. Please tell me we are not going to go through another round of you vaguely demanding answers to questions you either haven’t asked or refuse to identify.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.22    3 weeks ago
It definitely does not. You need to make clear who is doing what to whom and why.

You didn't ask all of that Tacos!.

Trump solicited a bribe from Zelensky. Zelensky announces an investigation into the Bidens [the deliverable] and Trump gives him a WH meeting and releases the hold on military aid [the official act]. 

You can’t keep changing the story every week.

The known facts change every week and I intend to recognize that and incorporate them. Ignore them if you wish. 

Well, I guess you could, but so far it hasn’t done much for the credibility of the accusers.

One would loose credibility only if they ignored new facts as they come to light. 

No because you haven’t asked me a question in this thread. Please tell me we are not going to go through another round of you vaguely demanding answers to questions you either haven’t asked or refuse to identify.

If we were to revisit that Tacos!, it would revisiting the topic of your refusal to answer question in another seed and that isn't permitted. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.24  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.1.23    3 weeks ago
and that isn't permitted

And yet you're the one who asked me if I was going to answer your questions. Apparently you were referring to another seed? Should you be getting dinged for a violation?

ooo-you-in-5bdcff.jpg

 
 
 
Dulay
12.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.24    3 weeks ago
And yet you're the one who asked me if I was going to answer your questions. Apparently you were referring to another seed? Should you be getting dinged for a violation?

Nothing so nefarious Tacos!.

You asked me a question an hour or more AFTER I had posted mine and hadn't received an answer.

Hell, I've got a certain gilled member following me around with cricket memes minutes after he posts a question. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12.1.26  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tacos! @12.1.1    3 weeks ago

You adjust the volume, you adjust your underwear, you don't adjust what you say or do to cover your own ass.

 
 
 
dennis smith
12.1.27  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @12.1.5    3 weeks ago

How do you know what Trump knew, magic 8 ball ??

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.1.28  Tacos!  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @12.1.26    3 weeks ago
you adjust your underwear

The search for comfortable underwear is never-ending. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @12    3 weeks ago

So attempted extortion/bribery isn't a crime? I was wondering how long it would take the right wing to get to that point. Just like attempted murder, rape, robbery, aren't crimes either? Oh wait, they are. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.1  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @12.2    3 weeks ago

Think what you like. You clearly are doing that already.

 
 
 
MrFrost
12.2.2  MrFrost  replied to  Tacos! @12.2.1    3 weeks ago

How am I wrong? 

 
 
 
katrix
12.2.3  katrix  replied to  MrFrost @12.2    3 weeks ago
So attempted extortion/bribery isn't a crime? I was wondering how long it would take the right wing to get to that point. Just like attempted murder, rape, robbery, aren't crimes either? Oh wait, they are. 

Yeah, one of the Forever Trumpsters just tried to make that argument to me on another thread. It's astonishing.

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  MrFrost @12.2.2    3 weeks ago
How am I wrong? 

It would be easier to count where you are not wrong, but ok . . . 

So attempted extortion/bribery isn't a crime?

Wrong. I never said that or anything like it.

I was wondering how long it would take the right wing to get to that point

Wrong in that I am not "right wing," whatever you think that is

Wrong in that I do not speak for nor otherwise represent the "right wing"

Wrong in that anyone on the right wing has said extortion is not a crime or that bribery is not a crime

You might be confused. If you say a certain act is bribery, someone else can disagree that bribery has even happened. No one has said bribery isn't a crime.

Just like attempted murder, rape, robbery, aren't crimes either?

Wrong. No one said that either.

So, that's how you are wrong. That's a lot of ways to be wrong, but there it is.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
12.2.5  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  katrix @12.2.3    3 weeks ago

I had one dare me to list Trump's lies.  By the time I would have finished, I would have aged two years.

 
 
 
Dulay
12.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @12    3 weeks ago
So we should remove him because he pursued a goal and tried to conform to the law while doing it?

What law are you claiming that Trump conformed with? Surely not the campaign finance law or the law against solicitation of bribery or the Treaty between the US and Ukraine. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
12.3.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @12.3    3 weeks ago
What law are you claiming that Trump conformed with? Surely not the campaign finance law or the law against solicitation of bribery or the Treaty between the US and Ukraine. 

I didn't make a claim about a specific law. JR used the word 'law' in his op-ed article. I quoted it and then responded to it. If you really think there is an actual law being referenced, you could ask him, I guess, but I think it's a waste of time.

If you look at my quote and his writing, you will see a set of single quotation marks around the word 'law' in that sentence. That made it pretty plain to me that he was not referencing a specific statute, but rather a generic body of statutes, regulations, protocols, and traditions in addition to the legal process of investigation and accountability that leads to impeachment. So, to answer your question, that would be the 'law' we are talking about.

 
 
 
It Is ME
12.3.2  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @12.3    3 weeks ago
the Treaty between the US and Ukraine.

Is that the "One Way ONLY" treaty between the United States and Ukraine ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

OR …..

Maybe.....

The "Treaty" that  " provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters " ?

 
 
 
 
Dulay
13  Dulay    3 weeks ago
I didn't make a claim about a specific law.

Well you claimed that Trump 'conformed with the law', I thought you might be able to supply an example. 

JR used the word 'law' in his op-ed article. 

I interpret the word "law" as used by JR to be the equivalent the meaning in 'I fought the law and the law won'. I don't think JR meant a 'generic body of statutes' but rather a group of LEO's knocking on Trump's door.

But hey, we'll have to ask John. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @13    3 weeks ago
I don't think JR meant a 'generic body of statutes' but rather a group of LEO's knocking on Trump's door.

I think that's roughly consistent with my thinking. As I said, this was not about a specific law. So why are you still going on about this?

 
 
 
Dulay
13.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @13.1    3 weeks ago
I think that's roughly consistent with my thinking. As I said, this was not about a specific law. So why are you still going on about this?

Mostly because your scenario and mine are utterly opposing. Your talking about statutes and I'm talking about Leo's, who are PEOPLE. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @13.1.1    3 weeks ago
Your talking about statutes

I still have not talked about any statute. That is something you are making up. It has already been explained to you twice that I was not talking about any specific statute, law, or regulation and you keep on with this harassing bullshit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
13.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @13.1.2    3 weeks ago
 It has already been explained to you twice that I was not talking about any specific statute, law, or regulation and you keep on with this harassing bullshit. 

"About statutes' isn't 'specific statutes' IS IT Tacos!? 

You said:

That made it pretty plain to me that he was not referencing a specific statute, but rather a generic body of statutes, regulations, protocols, and traditions in addition to the legal process of investigation and accountability that leads to impeachment.

What John and I are talking about is PEOPLE coming a knockin' on Trump door. I can't make it any clearer for you. 

As for 'harassing bullshit', that's ridiculous. Triggered much? I made a simple statement. Cut the drama. 

 
 
 
Tacos!
13.1.4  Tacos!  replied to  Dulay @13.1.3    3 weeks ago

Is there some kind of point to this continual harassment? I don't need you to tell me what I meant. You contribute nothing by inventing a disagreement or conflict where none existed. No one even claimed to be confused by anything I said except you, and I don't believe you were confused about anything in the first place. Nevertheless, it has been explained to you over and over and yet you keep at it. I see no point. For Pete's sake, knock it off!

 
 
 
Dulay
13.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Tacos! @13.1.4    3 weeks ago
Is there some kind of point to this continual harassment?

Tissue? 

Why are you resorting to a victim card? NO ONE is making you read or reply to a fucking thing. Cut the drama. 

I don't need you to tell me what I meant. 

I merely quoted what you said, I didn't interpret what your meant. 

You contribute nothing by inventing a disagreement or conflict where none existed.

If a disagreement doesn't exist, why are you making such disagreeable comments?  

No one even claimed to be confused by anything I said except you, and I don't believe you were confused about anything in the first place.

Never said I was 'confused'. Why the strawman? 

Nevertheless, it has been explained to you over and over and yet you keep at it. I see no point. For Pete's sake, knock it off!

More tissue? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
14  author  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago
I interpret the word "law" as used by JR to be the equivalent the meaning in 'I fought the law and the law won'. I don't think JR meant a 'generic body of statutes' but rather a group of LEO's knocking on Trump's door.

Yep.  I said Trump said what he said to Sondland on Sep 9 because he saw the "law" was onto him. The "law" meaning any authority that could investigate him and punish him for what he had done, including Congress. 

 
 
 
Dulay
14.1  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @14    3 weeks ago

 
 
 
lady in black
15  lady in black    3 weeks ago

77048580_2905074706172035_82167450124995

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
16  Sean Treacy    3 weeks ago

Are we done pretending impeachment is anything other then a chance for Democrats to yell at clouds yet?

https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary

 
 
 
Tacos!
16.1  Tacos!  replied to  Sean Treacy @16    3 weeks ago

So as evidence has been produced, support for impeachment is actually declining. You'd think that might give someone pause. Like maybe objective observers just don't see what they see.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ed-NavDoc


29 visitors