guilty
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
Who is online
49 visitors
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.
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.
You're right John - what you're doing is NOT good for the country and you really need to understand that.
You are running out of time to reject Trump and Trumpism.
I will never accept lying and corruption as a norm of the presidency.
He would never have been elected back then. But all that changed in the 1990s.
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.
I think one of the best points made.
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.
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.
Meh. Close enough that it probably will, though.
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.
My concern is less about 2020 and more about whether or not we're putting ourselves on a path to increasingly worse situations.
I do hope so. I confess my optimism is waning.
It is. And your posts are a prime example.
We all know you think so. But from the perspective of potential articles of impeachment, that does not appear to be likely.
Sure. Riiiiiight. We get it. Anybody who dares introduce reason or moderation into your blind fits of bias is the enemy. *eyeroll*
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.
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.
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."
You're wrong.
How do you know ?
Maybe. I think a lot of that will have to do with who runs against him.
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.
It's not election interference until your side loses the election.
She doesn't.
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?
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.
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.
It was 100% pure grass roots. I was part of it.
Is that why y'all called yourselves the T axed E nough A lready Party?
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.
Ya, you're a part of the 'State of Jefferson' too Xx.
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.
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?
There is no hold up. Just a failed Left wing con job.
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.
I’m a part of that movement as well. SOJ51!
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.
The [tremoved] were an astroturf movement funded in large part by the Koch brothers. As usual Jack, [removed]
You are incorrect as usual.
I don't watch CNN.
No.
That's the truth. And it never ends.
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.
Still pretending you don't understand the difference. Or maybe you actually don't understand. I'm really not sure which is sadder.
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.
Your comment.
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.
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.
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.
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".
IMO 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.
OMG ya cracked the case... LOL
ya should have informed vindman
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.
Spins what?
Stay on topic or you may have your comments removed.
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
[deleted]
[Removed]
[deleted]
[Removed (meta)]
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.
Never said you did.
No, the source and the headline are lying and the member who posted it is propagating that lie.
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.
Vindman is not the topic of this article. Any comments about Vindman will be subject to removal.
that's okay with me... delete anything ya don't like... my point has already been made.
cheers
[Removed]
Mine too...
What point?
See John? I told you, theirs weren't removed but mine were. What a surprise!
does seem a little strange
Tess,
Your comment came with an insult. That is why it was removed.
Not really !
'Fat chance of that I think. Certain folks seem to be immune to 'moderation'
why was this one removed?
But Lt. Col. Vindman was the MOST important "Non-Whistleblower" Witness for the Democrats on the "Intelligence
" committee so far !
His "Feelings" supposedly meant more than anyone's !
In Fact....he was told to "Shutup" by Schiffty, when he started "Naming Names" !
He's gotta be the Most Important …… "Witness" ……. LIKE …..... EVER !
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.
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.
[Removed]
Ditto.
But YOU are fun !
Well I wasn't talking to you either but the same applies.
That just Hurt....really deep down in my soul !
I can relate.
The only point you made was that you're willing to post video link headlines that are lies.
Wow, the headline says one thing and the video shows another. Not surprised considering the source.
Glad you caught that sir; the video seems to make the opposite point .
"guilty"
Because Ambassador Gordon " He did but he didn't " Sondland ….. did and didn't say so ?
Democrats are hanging their hats on their usual …"I voted for it before I didn't".... Shit again !
That's worked well before.
No gobbledygook please.
Butt....Butt....that's what this impeachment hearing is all about...….Just Plain ICKINESS !
Just look at the Title of the article, compared to Sondland's actual "He did and didn't" testimony !
Again, good luck with that!
With What ?
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?
And then said there wasn't.
I guess you missed that part.
Didn't see Rudy at the hearing.
Maybe try something …… really Impressive for a change ?
And all by yourself ?
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.
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 !
I could have gone all day without seeing his toad face.
All of those things heavily depend on what the definition of "is" is.
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
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.
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.
Pretty funny, the red line looks like trumps approval ratings.
I'm not seeing that.
It was a joke Dean, lighten up.
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.
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.
Really?
And what were the results of the vote to impeach? Did the Democrats take some secret vote that you alone are privy to?
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.
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.
Quirky? You are far too kind sir.
When did the vote take place?
And you are so WRONG!!!!!
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.
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 !
Why are you talking nonsense at me?
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.
Then Biden is Screwed.
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 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.
What aid do you think was being withheld?
So....Trump gained …… NOTHING !
Got it !
No 1st, no I'm not wrong and your own link proves it.
Here's the link YOU posted:
As I stated earlier, this is the first statement in YOUR link:
Again, YOUR OWN LINK goes on to debunk the bullshit comments you've posted here.
Your comment is FALSE.
I am profoundly sorry that you consider me quoting your EXACT words to be nonsense, but, hey, when you're right, you're right!
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 .
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!
WOW !
And I should stay civil with you after a SHIT Statement like that ?
" Attempting to obstruct justice is still a crime"
And that's been proven ...... When ..... Where ?
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.
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.
All she has?
When that's all someone has they tend to go full tilt.
Says the queen of idiotic emojis
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.
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.
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.
Except Trump, he doubles down. Trump goes from getting off on collusion with Russia one day to soliciting a bribe from Ukraine the next.
Well, what he did to Ukraine is good for Russia ... it's all related.
Dr. Hill is making that abundantly clear, at least for those of use not looking at it through Trumpster bias.
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.
Really ?
"Asking" is now called "Coercion" ?
What American "Public" interest, did Trump expend ?
Luv yer pronouncements of unsubstantiated "opinionated facts" to get from one topic to another.
I understand 1st.
It's easier to make personal comments than address my replies to your allegations against Biden.
Oh? Was Trump counting on lil ole me for something? I very much doubt it.
Coercion? Who have they coerced?
And you say "attempts" plural. So there's more than one? What are you talking about?
Wait a minute. So now Ukraine is bribing Trump? I thought it was supposed to be Trump who was bribing Ukraine. Which is it?
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 !
Solicitation of a bribe, is bribery. Hope that answers your question.
Now do you have a answer for mine?
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 ?
It's a good thing you ain't Trump.
He actually hands those things out !
But you "Digress"....I'm sure !
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.
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.
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].
The known facts change every week and I intend to recognize that and incorporate them. Ignore them if you wish.
One would loose credibility only if they ignored new facts as they come to light.
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.
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.
You adjust the volume, you adjust your underwear, you don't adjust what you say or do to cover your own ass.
The search for comfortable underwear is never-ending.
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.
Think what you like. You clearly are doing that already.
How am I wrong?
Yeah, one of the Forever Trumpsters just tried to make that argument to me on another thread. It's astonishing.
It would be easier to count where you are not wrong, but ok . . .
Wrong. I never said that or anything like it.
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.
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.
I had one dare me to list Trump's lies. By the time I would have finished, I would have aged two years.
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.
Is that the "One Way ONLY" treaty between the United States and Ukraine !
OR …..
Maybe.....
The "Treaty" that " provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters " ?
Well you claimed that Trump 'conformed with the law', I thought you might be able to supply an example.
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.
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.
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.
"About statutes' isn't 'specific statutes' IS IT Tacos!?
You said:
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.
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!
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 merely quoted what you said, I didn't interpret what your meant.
If a disagreement doesn't exist, why are you making such disagreeable comments?
Never said I was 'confused'. Why the strawman?
More tissue?
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.
Are we done pretending impeachment is anything other then a chance for Democrats to yell at clouds yet?
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.