The Lie Of The Year

  
Via:  john-russell  •  4 weeks ago  •  112 comments

The Lie Of The Year

This article is a couple weeks old, but will always be timely. 


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


President Donald Trump started the morning of Sept. 20 dismissing headlines about someone who blew the whistle on a phone call he had with the president of Ukraine. The call, he   tweeted , was "pitch perfect."

Later that morning, Trump and first lady Melania opened the White House for a day of ceremony with Australia’s prime minister and his wife. Before their dinner of sunchoke ravioli and Dover sole, the four sat in the Oval Office as reporters asked Trump about the whistleblower’s account.

"It’s a ridiculous story. It’s a partisan whistleblower," Trump said, though he added he didn’t know who it was and hadn’t read the complaint. 

Since the Sept. 26 release of the whistleblower complaint about his call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has insisted more than 80 times that the whistleblower’s account is fake, fraudulent, incorrect, "total fiction," "made up," and "sooo wrong." 

On Oct. 5 he   tweeted   that the "second hand information ‘Whistleblower’ got my phone conversation almost completely wrong."

"Everything he wrote in that report, almost, was a lie," Trump told reporters Nov. 8.

"The whistleblower defrauded our country, because the whistleblower wrote something that was totally untrue," he said to the approval of supporters at a rally Dec. 10 in Hershey, Pa.

Despite what Trump claims, the whistleblower got the call "almost completely" right.

We know this from the very record of the call the president released. We know this from testimony under oath from career diplomats and other officials. And the president and his allies have told reporters that Trump did what the whistleblower suggested — urged the Ukrainian president to investigate political rival Joe Biden. Their argument is that there was nothing inappropriate or unreasonable about it. Trump on Oct. 3 asked China to look at Biden and his son, Hunter, too.

Every year, PolitiFact editors review the year’s most flagrant inaccuracies in search of a significant false claim that can be elevated to Lie of the Year. 

The distinction is awarded to a statement that is more than ridiculous and wrong. The Lie of the Year — the only time   PolitiFact uses the word "lie"   — speaks to a falsehood that proves to be of real consequence and gets repeated in a virtual campaign to undermine an accurate narrative.

The whistleblower, who to Trump’s consternation remains unidentified, raised the concern that the president’s actions leading up to and on that phone call amount to interference in the coming presidential election. Agree or disagree with the conclusion, or whether the president’s conduct warrants impeachment, the actions described in the complaint stand up to factual scrutiny.

The claim that the whistleblower got his phone call "almost completely wrong" is PolitiFact’s 2019 Lie of the Year.

At the heart of the whistleblower complaint: an historic phone call

The whistleblower filed the now famous complaint on Aug. 12. It is nine pages long. The description of a July 25 phone call between Trump and Zelensky takes up two pages. That section is the backbone (though not the entirety) of the impeachment inquiry of the president.

Trump started the call after 9 a.m. from the residence of the White House. The purpose for the leaders’ phone call, as suggested by the National Security Council, was for Trump to congratulate Zelensky on his political party winning control of Ukraine’s parliament.

The call started with pleasantries and lasted half an hour. The whistleblower was not listening in but cited "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call." The complaint says Trump "pressured" Zelensky to:

• investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden;

• look into allegations that interference in the 2016 election, attributed to Russia, originated with Ukraine and a Democratic server; and,

• speak with Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr about those issues.

The day before the   whistleblower’s complaint   was public, the White House   released a memo   about the conversation that serves as a rough transcript of the call. Over the ensuing 80 days, the nation has watched Trump and his allies dispute the meaning of the core concerns, even as three officials who were listening have confirmed and elaborated on what was said in congressional testimony.

Those officials are Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of the National Security Council; Jennifer Williams, adviser on Russia and Europe for Vice President Mike Pence; and Tim Morrison, who resigned his post as the top Russia expert on the National Security Council in October.

Investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden

While Joe Biden was vice president, his son, Hunter, accepted a directorship on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings.

The whistleblower said Trump wanted Zelensky to "initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden." 

Confirmed.   Page 4   of the White House partial transcript quotes Trump as saying, "The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me." 



What the whistleblower said about the Bidens




2859131_1575922933662.png




What Trump said about the Bidens




2859131_1575923038611.png




Tags

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

The article is kind of long. I cut it off in the seed but the rest of it can be read at the seed link. 

-

Trump LIES when he says the whistleblower got it completely wrong, and it is a LIE he has told , in public, 70 or 80 times.   To say this is bizarre and not behavior worthy of the leader of the free world is putting it mildly. 

Trump uses the tactic of a Goebbels, or a Jim Jones type cult leader.  Lie over and over and over again and to some people the very repetition will cause some of the marks to believe you. 

A lot of Trumpsters , on NT and elsewhere , ask for a list of Trump's lies, as if one cannot be immediately produced.  These are sad times for America. 

 
 
 
WallyW
1.1  WallyW  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago

The whistleblower was not listening in but cited "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call."

You still trying to make something relevant out of this second hand "source"?  jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
XDm9mm
1.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  WallyW @1.1    4 weeks ago
You still trying to make something relevant out of this second hand "source"? 

Well, you know that old saying;

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.

What's even better is that the pile of dung JR is trying to push wasn't even used by the Democrats in their impeachment zeal as THEY recognized the paper it was on was better suited for wiping ones ass.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
1.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1    4 weeks ago
This article is a couple weeks old, but will always be timely.

Suuuure it will............................Think about this..................

384

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2  XDm9mm    4 weeks ago

Blah, blah, blah.

JR...  you got your impeachment.  Be happy for once.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 weeks ago

Trump lied 80 times about something a 6th grader could see he was lying about.  Thats gotta sting, eh? 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.1  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1    4 weeks ago
Thats gotta sting, eh? 

Only to you JR, only to you.  But whatever Trump does that is good for all you see as bad.

You're really sounding like a broken record playing the same vitriol over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over............

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.1.2  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.1    4 weeks ago

No, here is "over and over"

Since the Sept. 26 release of the whistleblower complaint about his call with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump has insisted more than 80 times that the whistleblower’s account is fake, fraudulent, incorrect, "total fiction," "made up," and "sooo wrong." 
 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.3  XDm9mm  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.2    4 weeks ago
No, here is "over and over"

I hate repeating myself, but for you I will;

Blah, blah, blah.

 
 
 
loki12
2.1.4  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1.3    4 weeks ago

Is this article Johns way of trying to deflect from the fact that the democrats are supporting a terrorist over the US because they hate trump?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.5  XDm9mm  replied to  loki12 @2.1.4    4 weeks ago
Is this article Johns way of trying to deflect from the fact that the democrats are supporting a terrorist over the US because they hate trump?

No.  It's just JR regurgitating his vitriolic hatred for President Trump over and over again.  It's sad really when one recognizes exactly how much hatred he has and displays on an near hourly basis and how much that hatred has obviously taken over his entire existence and reason for being.

 
 
 
jungkonservativ111
2.2  jungkonservativ111  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 weeks ago

Have they turned in the articles of impeachment yet? I haven't been following the charade very closely. Just partisan white noise at this point.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  jungkonservativ111 @2.2    4 weeks ago
Have they turned in the articles of impeachment yet?

Nope.  They don't want to do that too soon as it would further embarrass them.  Plus it would take too many Democrats off the campaign trail as they have to be in the Senate.  That would help biden immensely and that's a terrifying thought for Democrats.  I can see it now, a Biden/Clinton ticket!!

 
 
 
loki12
2.2.2  loki12  replied to  XDm9mm @2.2.1    4 weeks ago
a Biden/Clinton ticket!!

You will never see Hillary's left hand again, it will be up Joe's ass making his mouth move as he says what she tells him to.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.2.3  XDm9mm  replied to  loki12 @2.2.2    4 weeks ago
it will be up Joe's ass making his mouth move as he says what she tells him to.

She'll be using it to support herself lest she stumble around falling out of her shoes.

 
 
 
Ronin2
2.2.4  Ronin2  replied to  loki12 @2.2.2    4 weeks ago

You mean when Hillary isn't telling Joe to let go of her after hugging her for too long.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2    4 weeks ago
you got your impeachment.

No, trump got the impeachment, and deservedly so.

Using our public trust for personal gain rises to the level of abuse of his powers, regardless of the partisan intentions and excuses from either side. He will more than likely not be convicted by the Senate, in a 'trial' conducted sans witnesses.

The 'whistleblower' diversion is just that...while his apologists focus on the individual that exposed his indiscretions and is excoriated (defeating the very purpose of the intended legislation), the actual witnesses to the issue at hand are excused from testifying, first by the administration under investigation, and worse, by the Senate who is Constitutionally mandated to conduct an 'impartial' trial. It is an embarrassment to everything we should hold dear.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.1  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3    4 weeks ago
the actual witnesses to the issue at hand are excused from testifying,

Testified in front of House panels and provided exactly NADA.  Unless you call beliefs, supposition, hear say, conjecture, innuendo, theories, etc., as viable testimony.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.2  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.1    4 weeks ago
Testified in front of House panels and provided exactly NADA.

No, they provided more than enough evidence to bring articles of impeachment before the Senate.

Now if the the Senate would bring witnesses to contradict the testimony given before the House (a sham investigation according to the GOP), perhaps we would all be better served. After all, if it was indeed a sham, wouldn't you long for the opportunity to offer your own testimony? Trump wants it, Giulani wants it, yet somehow I think that is a greasy slope that the Majority has demonstrated neither the self-serving interest nor gumption to pursue, regardless of their Constitutionally mandated duties. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.3  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.2    4 weeks ago
No, they provided more than enough evidence to bring articles of impeachment before the Senate.

Opinion of somebody who proving to be a partisan hack at the level of John. You can't even pretend to be unbiased anymore, Sad : (

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.4  katrix  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.1    4 weeks ago
Unless you call beliefs, supposition, hear say, conjecture, innuendo, theories, etc., as viable testimony.

If that's what you think about the testimony (which is totally wrong, btw), then why do you support Trump's refusal to allow the people with firsthand knowledge to testify? If they're not going to say anything incriminating, why wouldn't he let them testify? You can't have it both ways. Trump whines about how unfair it is - what's unfair is the GOP coming right out and saying they won't conduct a fair trial, they won't bother to read the evidence because their minds are made up to just suck up to Trump and ignore facts, and they won't allow further witnesses. And Trump obstructed Congress' investigation by forbidding the testimony that would matter the most.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    4 weeks ago

And what is your comment....

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.6  igknorantzrulz  replied to  katrix @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
Trump obstructed Congress' investigation by forbidding the testimony that would matter the most.

Bottom Line

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.7  katrix  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    4 weeks ago
Opinion of somebody who proving to be a partisan hack at the level of John

And  you pretend to be unbiased, with your adulation of everything Trump has ever done? You seem to have no problem with his fraudulent charity, his fraudulent university, and all the other illegal and unethical things he's done.

Trump toadies despise ethics and morals.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.8  loki12  replied to  katrix @2.3.7    4 weeks ago
with your adulation of everything Trump has ever done?

You can post a link to this right? if not, trot on, your post is meaningless as usual.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.9  loki12  replied to  katrix @2.3.7    4 weeks ago
You seem to have no problem with his fraudulent charity, his fraudulent university, and all the other illegal and unethical things he's done.

I had a problem with every one of those things, and he has made restitution has he not? and didn't all those happen before he was President? and you talk about crooked? The worthless cunt you supported approved selling Russia 20% of our Uranium AND received donations from hostile foreign governments while she was SOS to her Charity, so your morality is at zero when it comes to judging others.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.10  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.5    4 weeks ago

An accurate assessment, obviously.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.11  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.10    4 weeks ago

obvious to who,

ignorant people ?

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.12  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.11    4 weeks ago

Obviously not,

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.13  XDm9mm  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.2    4 weeks ago
Now if the the Senate would bring witnesses to contradict the testimony given before the House (a sham investigation according to the GOP), perhaps we would all be better served.

How does one contradict beliefs, supposition, hear say and innuendo?  Oh, and personal "feelings"?

After all, if it was indeed a sham, wouldn't you long for the opportunity to offer your own testimony?

Any lawyer will advise his/her client to keep his mouth shut and not "testify".  And those others who they want to testify have that thing called "executive privilege".

I think that is a greasy slope that the Majority has demonstrated neither the self-serving interest nor gumption to pursue, regardless of their Constitutionally mandated duties. 

Yes, the House of Representatives most certainly slid down that greasy slope of self-serving interest and partisan bullshit.  Had they actually wanted to do the right thing, they would have pursued subpoenas through the courts as they did in ONE instance.  Then when they got what they wanted in the court, they FAILED to call the "witness" to testify.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.3.14  XDm9mm  replied to  katrix @2.3.4    4 weeks ago
If that's what you think about the testimony (which is totally wrong, btw),

Everyone testified that they had NO DIRECT PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of anything said.

So what exactly is "totally wrong"?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.15  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.12    4 weeks ago

Obviously not,

any thinking individua;ls, cause they are NOT supporters of the embarrassmeant  4 ewe flocking Sheeple, as he should be impaled on a flat steeple chaseing his tall tales around your backs, broken as a front, for him to do asz he pleases while you and cump cough and sneezes, like ewes all caught a baaa d  diseaeses, while the reason would be....

ignorance has become contagious...,

quarantine ewes cause you've been over used    to a degree deserved of scolding, peeling back layers of skin like an unappealing onion ring on fire like a hoola hoop dancer with grass skirt a fire, with KNOW DESIRE to NO, the difference betyween the truth,   and what you currently be leaving,  all while deceiving only other sheeple,   that would be use  and your flock of gaggling geese afraid to gander , only allowed to pander, to a pseudo liter that any non kangaroo court would jester a thumbns down right up, dirty fonzi style,   while all the while

unable to spell Aaaaaaaaay

B  cause ewe are unable to C we and so many have been D eceived 

E ven though u can't knot F eel the slimy,     cause   sheep are knumb to cotton tales unless bitten by a bat shit crazy rabid dawg, that Trump Must Shoot on a 5th Avenue Bar

none   and allow all to Fall

in this "Torrid Autumn" of decline

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.16  loki12  replied to  igknorantzrulz @2.3.15    4 weeks ago
ignorance has become contagious...,

I will accept your obvious experience in this. [deleted]

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.17  igknorantzrulz  replied to  loki12 @2.3.16    4 weeks ago

i'm the acception

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.18  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    4 weeks ago

Loki, I cant respond to you properly because I will be censored by the mods if I do.

[Deleted, skirting]

As long as you stay clear of that fairytale and all the other right wing lunatic theories you may be alright. 

Do we count that in minutes or seconds? 

[Deleted, META]

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.19  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3.3    4 weeks ago
Opinion of somebody who proving to be a partisan hack at the level of John. You can't even pretend to be unbiased anymore, Sad : (

John may have reservations if lumping us into the same camp, as we have respectfully disagreed many times in the past. So let me respectfully disagree with your assertion here.

My dislike and distrust of trump is well documented. My dismay and disgust with trumpism is not partisan hackery. Just the opposite, loki...it is based on a belief we find ourselves in a post-truth era, where facts are dismissed (he has in fact been impeached) and the apologies expended in defense of the indefensible only go to prove the fact that the real partisans would wish away if only they could. Dismissal of the truth in advancing a partisan agenda, regardless of party, is what is truly, 'Sad'. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.20  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.19    4 weeks ago

The difference is I complain about trump for the same things Obama did, just like I don't support trump for the same thing Obama did, that i complained about. You lack that difference. Obama obstructed congress and lied, you were silent. and now you complain, If the English language only had a word for that.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.3.21  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.18    4 weeks ago
The right has dragged NT far enough into the abyss . Other people need to speak up again. 

Sorry John but it seems that you may have wanted it to remain an echo chamber of great proportions. That you are "forced" to read differing opinions seems to have upset your psyche. And as far as speaking up, that is exactly what is happening. I'm sorry, well not really that sorry, that a back and forth with arguments for both sides isn't to your liking.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.22  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3.20    4 weeks ago
 just like I don't support trump for the same thing Obama did, that i complained about.

"Hint: Education will relieve some of the symptoms."

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.23  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.18    4 weeks ago
Only morons believe that Hillary approved selling 20% of US uranium to Russia

Only morons didn't know as SOS she had to sign off John,  Did you really not know that she had to sign off on the deal John?

Beyond the State Department, eight other government agencies approved the Uranium One sale.

You do know who was in charge of the State department then don't you John.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.24  loki12  replied to  loki12 @2.3.23    4 weeks ago

Speaking of obstruction, did you know that Obama refused more FOIA requests than any other President in history, and trump has spent more time talking directly to the press than any other president in history.  Proving the partisan hacks for exactly what they are.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.25  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.22    4 weeks ago

and once again your response is lacking if that's the best you can do. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.26  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3.25    4 weeks ago

ditto.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.27  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  loki12 @2.3.23    4 weeks ago

Hillary Clinton Sold The Russians 20% of The US's Uranium

What we have here is one of the most valuable sorts of lies on the market: the sort of lie that is based in   something   that is true, then twisted into intense falsehood. These lies are really useful for propagandists because they know that most people who are inclined to believe the lie (that is to say, in this case, "already hate Hillary") aren't necessarily going to dig very deep, or even really even try to disprove a claim they want to believe.

You can easily find that 20% of the USA's uranium was sold recently, and that is factual enough to fully flesh this thing out. Hillary did it, she's the one who's really in bed with Putin,   LOCK HER UP .

The truth of this uranium sale is a little more complicated than Alex Jones or the anti-Hillary crowd would have you believe.

Here is the basic truth that is inevitably twisted by right wing propaganda: In 2010, 20% of the uranium located within the United States became the property of Rosatom, Russia's nuclear agency. If that sounds scary, that makes sense, but when you realize what was actually happening, it becomes less so.

For one, the uranium was located inside the USA, but it was not owned by the US government, or even an American-owned company. As such, it was not the government's to buy and sell. It was the property of a company called Uranium One.

(Side note: Russia does not need "our" uranium. In terms of known deposits of uranium, Russia contains twice what the US does,   according to the World Nuclear Association . We should be worried if they try to buy up Australia's uranium, which comprises almost 30% of the worlds known deposits. We probably don't have to worry about that because   it looks like India is going to snatch up most of it   to run their 20   very safe   nuclear power plants.)

Secondly, Uranium One was a Canadian-based mining company. Their involvement in this deal was not that they sold actual uranium to Russians, but that Rosatom bought out 51% controlling interest in Uranium One. So technically, the Russian nuclear agency has a controlling interest in a Canadian mining operation that owns 20% of the uranium that has been found in our country.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Hillary Clinton did not set up this deal, and she could not have stopped it even if she had wanted to. That authority does not belong to the Secretary of State. The only reason she has anything to do with this at all is that she, as Secretary of State,  was one of nine members of the Council on Foreign Investment in the United States (or CFIUS)   who were tasked with reviewing the transaction due to the fact that it involved the transfer of a material deemed "relevant to national security."

The way the CFIUS works is that these nine people, the heads of the prominent cabinet departments, hear reports submitted to them regarding foreign interests purchasing things/companies in the US (and sometimes even not in the US). They research and deliberate,   only   weighing national security considerations, and then brief the president, who can choose to let the transaction proceed or, if there's an issue, halt it. In 2016,   Barack Obama did just that , stopping a Chinese company from buying a Dutch company that produced microchips, out of a concern that they were doing so for nefarious reasons.

So, at this point, its pretty clear that 1) Hillary Clinton did not personally have anything to do with any sale of uranium, 2) the uranium wasn't "ours" to begin with, and 3) this isn't even about the sale of uranium, it's about a merger.

There are other lies regarding the alleged payout of $141 million that was made to the Clinton Foundation to facilitate this deal, and the reality is that timing just does not match up for this quid-pro-quo idea to make sense. $131.3 million of the donations did come from a founder of Uranium One,   but he had sold off all his stake in the company three years prior to the merger .

We would go further into depth about this supposed money trail, but it feels kind of superfluous. The following is an argument for why this is not a bribery opportunity that anyone would act on:

  1. Hillary Clinton personally could not have had any impact on whether or not the purchase of controlling interest in Uranium One was approved or not by the CFIUS.
  2. If someone has no personal impact on a decision, it is incredibly unlikely (and just bad business) that someone would bribe them regarding that decision.
  3. Therefore, it is incredibly unlikely (and would just be bad business) that someone would bribe Hillary Clinton about the purchase of controlling interest in Uranium One.

If, in spite of this, you still want to posit that a company would pay $141 million to the Clinton Foundation for a bribe that Hillary clearly could not have delivered on, I suppose you can make that claim. I just don't think that anyone in business would be that dumb and nonstrategic.

In closing, it is worth noting that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency completely independent from Hillary Clinton, approved the deal as well.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.28  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @2.3.23    4 weeks ago

Can you name the other eight morons who signed off on the Uranium One deal, or the Deputy Director who signed for Clinton? Or the lower level Deputy Directors who signed for the other 8 morons?

Did you not know that it did not rise to the level of having Clinton herself sign off?

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.29  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.28    4 weeks ago

Now you are trying to say the person in charge isn't responsible? If the English language only had a word for your new attitude.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
2.3.30  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.28    4 weeks ago

[Meta]

Whether or not uranium was sold to Russia was not Hillary Clinton's decision to make.  This is a known fact, but still we have to suffer through ridiculous conspiracy theories. 

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.31  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.28    4 weeks ago
Can you name the other eight morons who signed off on the Uranium One deal,

None of the other 7 ran for President and got morons to vote for them, Maybe you should tell John that Hillary was involved in selling Uranium, he seems confused about it.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.32  loki12  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.26    4 weeks ago

Getting your information from Rush explains a lot, thanks for clarifying.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.33  loki12  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.30    4 weeks ago

Was she in charge of the state department John and did she have to sign off?  It is a simple yes or no question.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.34  r.t..b...  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.13    4 weeks ago
How does one contradict beliefs, supposition, hear say and innuendo?  Oh, and personal "feelings"?

Simply and confidently, with eye witness accounts to the events and the facts that support their case...unless of course, those facts are deleterious to ones' defense.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
2.3.35  r.t..b...  replied to  loki12 @2.3.32    4 weeks ago
Getting your information from Rush

Who?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.36  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @2.3.31    4 weeks ago

Totally immaterial to your premise that an SOS signed something she did not.

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.37  Split Personality  replied to  loki12 @2.3.33    4 weeks ago

That's 2 questions with 2 different answers.

But, you knew that.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.38  loki12  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.36    4 weeks ago

Fail!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
2.3.39  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Split Personality @2.3.36    4 weeks ago
Totally immaterial to your premise that an SOS signed something she did not.

So are you saying that an underling has just as much power as she does to sign documents? Only if she grants that power. Something like the power of attorney would have had to be signed. I sure as hell don't want anyone working for me to sign my name without my knowledge.

 
 
 
loki12
2.3.40  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.3.39    4 weeks ago

You have to understand, every bad thing that happens is trumps fault, even the stabbings in NY and the homeless in the deep blue shithole of California. but Obama and Clinton are so fucking incompetent you can't hold them accountable for anything that happened under their watch. This is the new TDS.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
2.3.41  igknorantzrulz  replied to  r.t..b... @2.3.22    4 weeks ago

"Hint: Education will relieve some of the symptoms."

sounds like solid advise, unless,

unless you're like me, and already posses enough vices, were as to add a vice, is just glutinous.

It sounds vaguely familiar. Now where might  have i,

have heard that line before...? 

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.3.42  Split Personality  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.3.39    4 weeks ago
The Committee on Foreign Investments has nine members, including the secretaries of the treasury, state, defense, homeland security, commerce and energy; the attorney general; and representatives from two White House offices (the United States Trade Representative and the Office of Science and Technology Policy).

When you are willing to round up all of these folks and treat them equally, let me know.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.3.43  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.3.27    4 weeks ago

Can you provide a reliable source for your info? A obviously biased podcast hardly counts as a reliable source.

 
 
 
Dulay
2.3.44  Dulay  replied to  XDm9mm @2.3.13    4 weeks ago
How does one contradict beliefs, supposition, hear say and innuendo?  Oh, and personal "feelings"?

The Minority in the House Intel committee seemed to think that Volker's and Morrison's beliefs, suppositions, hear say, innuendo and feelings would do so. They didn't.

And those others who they want to testify have that thing called "executive privilege".

There is only ONE person that can claim executive privilege and that's Trump. Yet Trump cannot do so to cover up wrongdoing. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

This 'president' does nothing that is good for all.  This 'president' only does what is good for his disgusting fat ass.  

 
 
 
WallyW
3.1  WallyW  replied to  Tessylo @3    4 weeks ago

Give us some specific examples..

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  WallyW @3.1    4 weeks ago

[Deleted

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.2  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.1    4 weeks ago
Stop wasting everyone's time.  

"Details" are a waste of your time ? jrSmiley_89_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.2    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.4  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    4 weeks ago
Since when has Greg or any tRump supporter provided any facts or details or anything of value?

Which "Facts" do you base that comment on ? (you don't read....remember?) 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @3.1.4    4 weeks ago

I don't read YOUR LINKS OR ANY LINKS PROVIDED BY tRump supporters and when I do on the rare occasion, there is usually an error, page not found, or it does not support what the poster alleges that it does.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
3.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    4 weeks ago
I don't read YOUR LINKS OR ANY LINKS PROVIDED BY tRump supporters.

That's been clear for quite sometime now. jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
3.1.7  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.3    3 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.5    3 weeks ago
I don't read YOUR LINKS OR ANY LINKS PROVIDED BY tRump supporters 

That's why I always laugh when you demand proof of anything!

 
 
 
It Is ME
4  It Is ME    4 weeks ago

"We know this from testimony under oath from career diplomats and other officials."

All we know so far is, how "Career" Diplomats and "Other" Officials...… "Felt" jrSmiley_99_smiley_image.jpg.

Not one of them stood up and said Trump actually Broke any "Laws" of this Country, when asked that "Specific" question !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4    4 weeks ago
All we know so far is, how "Career" Diplomats and "Other" Officials...… "Felt" .

What more do you need,

to NOT KNOW, cause don't you think you don't know enough by now...

What the Hell benefit would it be to know ALL the Facts from the MOST IMPORTANT persons involved...?

Worse than children with their fingers in their ears

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.1  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1    4 weeks ago
What more do you need,

Something more than "You Felt" ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.2  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.1    4 weeks ago

Yea, innocent persons are always told to NOT tell their side of the story...

Who would want the whole truth uncovered, the innocent, or those hiding things...

What a BAD JOKE the GOP is !

They are a True Embarrassment to our country. Just like Trump, just like those who defend imbecile Trump, and all that he does.

Pitiful pathetic pandering to a paltry pretend president, whose predictable path will eventually lead to the worst potUS in the history of these United States, when looked back upon by historians, and history in general. America...the country that allowed aloud, Ignorance to Rule over a country that has been damn fooled into believing pseudo realities, that should make any True American Patriot, BURN with anger.

  For People to be so gullible, is just ridiculous. There IS NO EXCUSE for Trump.

And even worse, are his Defenders of any and all that he does, and he continues to violate a nation, without cessation.

Are this many peoples brains on vacation ?

As he cuts through the swamp like a slug, sucking out the best juices that swirl from the deepest depths where he stirs with a fork in his tongue as for what he has done asz a whole, will hopefully never be outdone ! 

.

Our Country deserves so much better. 

The Defense of this "man", is outright offensive to anyu with the capabilities to reason and think,

don't you think...

NO, REALLY, Don't YOU THINK ?   

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.3  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.2    4 weeks ago
Yea, innocent persons are always told to NOT tell their side of the story...

It's not up to the "Innocent", to prove they are "Innocent".

Didn't they teach you that in "Grade School" ?

"I Felt", doesn't prove "Guilt"....of ANYONE !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.4  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.3    4 weeks ago

How can ones guilt or innocence be truly proven, without all of the facts ? 

Hint for You,   IT CAN"T

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.5  1stwarrior  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

Sure it can - ASK THE DEMS/LIBS in Congress.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.6  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.4    4 weeks ago

It's the "Accusers" responsibility to "Prove" !

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.7  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.6    4 weeks ago

It's the "Accusers" responsibility to "Prove" !

and Trump will not allow them to testify,

it's definitely, because HE HAS NOTHING TO HIDE !

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.8  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.7    4 weeks ago
and Trump will not allow them to testify,

The "Accusers" ?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
4.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.8    4 weeks ago

How can ones guilt or innocence be truly proven, without all of the facts ? 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.10  It Is ME  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.9    4 weeks ago
How can ones guilt or innocence be truly proven, without all of the facts ?

What truly is ……. ALL the "FACTS" ? jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif

"Felt".....is used in framing paintings, car manufacturing, musical instruments, home construction etc..... !

So.....how does "Felt" prove Guilt again ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
4.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.10    4 weeks ago

What amazes me is, the left doesn't think that the Senate members paid attention to the debacle labeled impeachment and therefore witnesses must come forth to rehash what they have already said. It's beyond stupidity.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.12  It Is ME  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.11    4 weeks ago

I was watching "Crying Chucky" today, make the case for the [deleted] on this "Impeachment Debacle that hasn't even reached the Senate Yet. He had Trump found guilty as he spoke, right on the Senate Floor. He was siting "Reports" by Magazines jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif, as his "He's Guilty" moments,  while telling "Mitch", how he wasn't being "Fair" for not doing anything to get the Senate ball rolling ! 

Chucky shoulda been after Nancy "bot" Pelosi, for NOT getting the ball rolling in the Senate. jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.13  loki12  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @4.1.11    4 weeks ago

What the retard Chuck Schumer doesn't understand is the Jury, which he is a member of can't call witnesses. the Prosecutor (the House) has it's Witnesses, the only person who is allowed to present rebuttal is the defense, (trump) the democrats in the Senate obviously hate our country and do process. We learned that with Kavanaugh.

256

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.1.14  1stwarrior  replied to  igknorantzrulz @4.1.9    4 weeks ago

Don't know - just ask the Dems/Libs Congresspeople - they'll be glad to explain it to you.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.15  It Is ME  replied to  It Is ME @4.1.12    4 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.16  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.13    4 weeks ago
What the retard Chuck Schumer doesn't understand is the Jury, which he is a member of can't call witnesses. the Prosecutor (the House) has it's Witnesses, the only person who is allowed to present rebuttal is the defense, (trump) the democrats in the Senate obviously hate our country and do process. We learned that with Kavanaugh.

So if Schumer is a 'retard' for actually knowing the rules, what are those who pretend they do but don't? 

At minimum I say willfully obtuse...

RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS

VI. The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way contempts of, and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conducive to the ends of justice. And the Sergeant at Arms, under the direction of the Senate, may employ such aid and assistance as may be necessary to enforce, execute, and carry into effect the lawful orders, mandates, writs, and precepts of the Senate.

https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/SMAN-104-pg177.pdf

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.1.17  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    4 weeks ago

I hear that that "House" managers haven't been decided on by Pelosi and Team yet.....or even considered for that matter.

What is the Senate supposed to be calling witness's for ?

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.18  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.16    4 weeks ago

Yawn, this is an impeachment, and the Rules are what the Majority says it is, and Schumer isn't the majority, So once again you are wrong, So yes he and his supporters for the most part are fucking retards.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.19  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.18    4 weeks ago
Yawn, this is an impeachment, and the Rules are what the Majority says it is, and Schumer isn't the majority, So once again you are wrong, So yes he and his supporters for the most part are fucking retards.

You really don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about loki. 

One would think that the Majority leader would have changed the rules by now if he could. He said this months ago:

"The Senate impeachment rules are very clear," McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in an interview with CNBC. "The Senate would have to take up an impeachment resolution if it came over from the House."

"Under the Senate rules we are required to take it up," McConnell reiterated in the interview. "If the House goes down that path, we will follow the Senate rules." 

"It is a Senate rule related to impeachment that would take 67 votes to change. I would have no choice but to take it up," he said. "How long you're on it is a whole different matter, but I would have no choice but to take it up, based on a Senate rule on impeachment." 

Per McConnell, the 'majority' can't change the impeachment rules. There are details they can set but the rules is the rules. 

So that's 2 strikes. Care to shoot for 3? 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.20  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.19    4 weeks ago

You are clueless as usual, Mitch was referring to the Clinton impeachment where they agreed 100-0 on the rules dickhead wants to change, so yes with 51 votes Mitch can change the rules, so you have proven yourself even more clueless than you were on David Betrayus. You still haven’t admitted how wrong you were so piss off!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.21  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.20    4 weeks ago
You are clueless as usual, Mitch was referring to the Clinton impeachment where they agreed 100-0 on the rules dickhead wants to change, so yes with 51 votes Mitch can change the rules, so you have proven yourself even more clueless than you were on David Betrayus. You still haven’t admitted how wrong you were so piss off!

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-choice-impeachment-house-votes-favor-mcconnell/story?id=65956558

McConnell was talking about the articles of impeachment against Trump. 

The 100-0 vote that you are so clueless about was on a Resolution SPECIFIC to the articles of impeachment against Clinton. Here is it's title:

A resolution to provide for the issuance of a summons and for related procedures concerning the articles of impeachment against William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States.

Strike 3. You're OUT.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.22  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.21    4 weeks ago

Your ignorance is stunning, only surpassed by hubris, I can prove you completely clueless with one question.

if Mitch can’t make the rules for impeachment whatever he wants, why is that cunt Nancy withholding the articles? 

Spin away son!

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
4.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  loki12 @4.1.20    4 weeks ago

loki and Dulay:

Please refrain from making this discussion personal.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.24  loki12  replied to  sandy-2021492 @4.1.23    4 weeks ago

Sandy, maybe you can answer for poor Dulay, Mitch managed to change the rules for how we confirm Supreme Court nominees but our [deleted] doesn’t think he can do the same for how impeachment hearings are held, the only thing Mitch can’t change is what’s codified in the constitution, ie the number of votes required to convict.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.25  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.22    4 weeks ago
Spin away son!

I'm not the one spinning loki.

Unlike you, I have posted links and facts. Facts which have proven that the posits in your comments are false. 

Your question isn't worthy of a reply. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.26  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.25    4 weeks ago

So you are still claiming Mitch can’t change the rules? Hilarious! 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.27  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.26    4 weeks ago
So you are still claiming Mitch can’t change the rules?

I never said that Mitch can't change the rules loki. I have merely taken Mitch at his word and HIS position is that the RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS cannot be changed by a simple majority as you falsely claimed. 

Hilarious! 

Actually loki, I find it sad that even after you've been proven utterly wrong about everything you have claimed, you just keep pretending you're right. 

Quite pathetic. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.28  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.27    4 weeks ago

Now you waffling, getting closer, can Mitch change the rules in the Senate with a simple majority? There is nothing that says he can’t, you are wrong.

and as for failing to admit when you are wrong, Patreaus ring a bell? You were wrong and still haven’t admitted it [deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.29  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.28    4 weeks ago
Now you waffling, getting closer,

Nope, READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

can Mitch change the rules in the Senate with a simple majority?

How many times do I have to tell you NO loki? 

3 strikes, you're out. 

There is nothing that says he can’t, you are wrong.

Then why did Mitch say it takes a 2/3rds vote loki?

Are you calling him a liar?

Or do you think that you know more about the Senate rules than Mitch?

Since you haven't admitted that you are WRONG about the Senate not being able to call witnesses and you didn't even know that the Impeachment rules and the Standing rules of the Senate are two different things, your track record ain't looking too good.

But hey, you be you and despite all facts to the contrary, keep telling yourself you are right. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.30  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.29    4 weeks ago

It doesn’t require a 2/3 vote, it only takes a majority to change the rules, you are still wrong and still running from being wrong about Patreaus.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.31  loki12  replied to  Dulay @4.1.29    4 weeks ago

Holy fuck, I never said the Senate could call witnesses, I said with a simple majority Mitch could tell Schumer to shove his witnesses up his ass and he can?

if there are rules for impeachment why isn’t Nancy sending it over? Because I’m right and you are wrong again.

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.32  loki12  replied to  loki12 @4.1.31    4 weeks ago

I’m just going to leave this her for those who want to be informed.

However, the Senate can adapt or change its rules, often by a simple majority vote. That means McConnell and other senators are much more free to take actions that influence the trial than members of a jury or even the judge in a standard criminal proceeding.

this is from snopes, so yes Mitch can change the rules like he did the filibuster.

he can’t change votes needed to convict, but he sure are fuck can change the rules, funny how some now find him so believable. 

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.33  loki12  replied to  loki12 @4.1.32    4 weeks ago

Also, Mitch can overrule Anything Justice Roberts rules with a simple majority, it seems like someone is always wrong. For those who wish to be educated.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.snopes.com/news/2019/12/19/impeachment-comes-to-the-senate-5-questions-answered/amp/

 
 
 
loki12
4.1.34  loki12  replied to  loki12 @4.1.33    4 weeks ago

Hahahahahahahahahaha.......

McConnell said he’ll try to negotiate a deal with Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) but that if it fails he’ll try to muster 51 votes in the Senate Republican Conference to set the rules of the trial.

Hey look, it only takes 51 votes to set the rules,  

you can now admit you were wrong.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/472851-mcconnell-senate-could-pass-partisan-rules-package-for-impeachment-trial

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.35  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.31    4 weeks ago
Holy fuck, I never said the Senate could call witnesses, I said with a simple majority Mitch could tell Schumer to shove his witnesses up his ass and he can?

Holy fuck, you know that members can see the whole thread right?

Again, READ MORE CAREFULLY. 

Here's what you ACTUALLY said loki:

What the retard Chuck Schumer doesn't understand is the Jury, which he is a member of can't call witnesses

I posted the Senate Impeachment rule that proves that you are WRONG, the Senate CAN call witnesses. 

if there are rules for impeachment why isn’t Nancy sending it over? Because I’m right and you are wrong again.

IF loki. I posted a fucking link to the Senate rules for Impeachment. Just stop. 

Oh and BTFW, Senate rules do NOT begin until the House give notice to the Senate. 

IF you would have read the link that I posted, perhaps the information would cause you to stop blathering bullshit. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.1.36  Dulay  replied to  loki12 @4.1.34    4 weeks ago
Hahahahahahahahahaha.......

You are conflating the Senate Impeachment rules and the rules of the trial. You really do seem to be having a hard time understanding simple concepts. 

 
 
 
loki12
5  loki12    3 weeks ago

I'm just going to leave this right here,

McConnell has the votes to begin impeachment trial without Democrats' support 

Not change the rules of the trial, but to change the rules of impeachment. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Wishful_thinkin
Sparty On
Tacos!
CB
Ronin2
jungkonservativ111
Save Me Jebus
Dulay


27 visitors