Doc Posted October 6, 2019 Share Posted October 6, 2019 Has Zelensky changed his story and said that he actually did feel pressured to make-/dig-up dirt or even investigate crooked Joe in exchange for the aid? No? Then still a nothingburger. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 8 hours ago, TH3 said: DR......do you really think cutting and pasting a bunch links and memes containing no actual substance from people nobody knows or dumb ass monikers is actual ....stuff? Is tibs on top or bottom of you ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 10 hours ago, ALF said: Lawyer for Ukraine whistleblower says he represents second whistleblower on Trump's actions Attorney Mark Zaid confirmed to CNN that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower. Zaid told CNN that the second whistleblower works in the intelligence community and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general, but has not filed their own complaint and doesn't need to as anyone who speaks to inspector watchdog is considered to have made a protected disclosure and is a whistleblower under law. https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/06/politics/second-whistleblower-trump-ukraine/index.html Whistlebowing what? Investigating corruption? The stupidity of the left will never cease to amaze me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2019 Author Share Posted October 7, 2019 “Jim Jordan suggests Trump was joking about China investigating Bidens.” 10 hours ago, dubs said: Whistlebowing what? Investigating corruption? The stupidity of the left will never cease to amaze me. You guys are all so corrupt. Just stupidly ignoring the obvious truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 20 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said: I'm also thinking it could be one of WB#1's sources. Filing for WB protection is better than being hung out to dry for a felony leak charge. that’s not how it works, so that is a dumb thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2019 Author Share Posted October 7, 2019 21 hours ago, DC Tom said: It's notable that they're not even calling for Barr's recusal, but going straight to impeachment and imprisonment. They're trying to get rid of everyone. They're going to try to tie Kavanaugh to the Ukraine soon. It's crazy how mad people get when others invite corrupt foreign influence into our elections! Crazy man! When Hillary was doing this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) Step 1: whistleblower 1 comes forward Step 2: attorney now represents one of the direct sources (likely) Step 3: internet weirdos drool over deep state conspiracies despite this being par for the course. what did I say pages ago? It’s okay for a whistleblower to have second hand knowledge because you then gather evidence, which includes finding the DIRECT SOURCES. Now that they have a direct source, you all act like something shady is occurring by this obvious and predictable development. Edited October 7, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2019 Author Share Posted October 7, 2019 Top US diplomate The top US diplomat in Ukraine complained in a Sept. 9 text, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” according to a trove of communications released late Thursday by the three Democratic leaders of the House impeachment inquiry. The text, which condemns a perceived cash-for-political dirt quid pro quo, was sent by US chargé d’affaires William “Bill” Taylor to Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the European Union — who four hours later pushes back with a firm, precisely worded response. “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions,” Sondland, a Republican megadonor, responds. “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind,” Sondland states. “The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky promised during his campaign,” he adds before asking that the conversation be taken offline: “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.” https://nypost.com/2019/10/04/house-dems-release-trove-of-texts-emails-related-to-trump-ukraine-probe/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 18 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: Step 1: whistleblower 1 comes forward Step 2: attorney now represents one of the direct sources (likely) Step 3: internet weirdos drool over deep state conspiracies despite this being par for the course. what did I say pages ago? It’s okay for a whistleblower to have second hand knowledge because you then gather evidence, which includes finding the DIRECT SOURCES. Now that they have a direct source, you all act like something shady is occurring by this obvious and predictable development. This is why you will always be 3rd Chair. The 1st whistleblower committed perjury and the 2nd whistleblower supposedly has limited knowledge. We have the transcript which is basically first hand knowledge. Hell, I could be a more knowledgeable whistleblower than those partisan hacks. If we cloned you we could field The Bad News Bears of Attorneydom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: This is why you will always be 3rd Chair. The 1st whistleblower committed perjury and the 2nd whistleblower supposedly has limited knowledge. We have the transcript which is basically first hand knowledge. Hell, I could be a more knowledgeable whistleblower than those partisan hacks. If we cloned you we could field The Bad News Bears of Attorneydom. why do you always like to chime in and compliment me on my accomplishments? It’s flattering, but you don’t have to! Showering me with praise won’t make me like you Edited October 7, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 Can someone please try and explain what the issue is here? Is the President not allowed to try and root out corruption involving the highest levels of the US government and foreign countries simply because those corrupt people are in the other political party or running for president? Also, ask yourself, if the President is going to solicit help from foreign governments to “interfere” in the election on his behalf, do you think he’d do it on a phone line with a bunch of people listening? or...is it more likely he wants people to hear about what was discussed (crowdstrike, Biden) because up to this point the vast majority of people, especially people who rely on the MSM, never heard of crowdstrike and never knew about Hunter Biden, etc.... I mean, being dead serious, this seems pretty simple to understand. Amazes me others don’t see it that way. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 7, 2019 Author Share Posted October 7, 2019 11 minutes ago, dubs said: Can someone please try and explain what the issue is here? Is the President not allowed to try and root out corruption involving the highest levels of the US government and foreign countries simply because those corrupt people are in the other political party or running for president? Also, ask yourself, if the President is going to solicit help from foreign governments to “interfere” in the election on his behalf, do you think he’d do it on a phone line with a bunch of people listening? or...is it more likely he wants people to hear about what was discussed (crowdstrike, Biden) because up to this point the vast majority of people, especially people who rely on the MSM, never heard of crowdstrike and never knew about Hunter Biden, etc.... I mean, being dead serious, this seems pretty simple to understand. Amazes me others don’t see it that way. Trump cares nothing about corruption, you know that. And the only time he does it's focused on his leading political opponent, how nifty. They held back aid on purpose for political purposes. How hard is that to understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Trump cares nothing about corruption, you know that. And the only time he does it's focused on his leading political opponent, how nifty. They held back aid on purpose for political purposes. How hard is that to understand? His campaign was entirely devoted to it. What do you think Drain the Swamp means? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 1 minute ago, dubs said: His campaign was entirely devoted to it. What do you think Drain the Swamp means? Lowering the water table in DC, obviously. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 Wall Street Journal column “Trump and Ukraine: What We Know,” Adams writes: If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent. Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see. It’s also smart to wait a week or two before you make up your mind, as the fog of war often makes early reporting unreliable. But after the fog clears, if all sides agree on a fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least it’s credible, even if future reporting debunks it. Following his own rules, Adams comes out here as of today: If you strip out the parts of the Ukraine story we can’t yet know to be true, you still know enough to have a responsible opinion. Vice President Biden was handling the Ukraine portfolio while his son had a financial interest in Ukraine, and that is enough of a conflict to merit an investigation. We all agree that the sitting president is responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections and generally keeping foreign interference in U.S. politics to a minimum. That’s what Mr. Trump was doing on the Ukraine phone call. (For those of you who say such matters should be handled at lower levels of government, my experience in corporate America tells me nothing much gets done until the bosses talk and agree. I assume government is similar.) All sides can also agree that Mr. Trump was serving his own re-election interests by asking Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden. But we also agree our political system allows that—even encourages it—so long as the president is also clearly pursuing the national interest. Before the Democratic primary, would it be good for the country to know more about Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine? Democrats should appreciate finding out soon if there is anything of concern, because I assume they don’t want to go into the general election with a candidate who has some surprises in his Ukrainian closet. What we all agree to be true about Joe and Hunter Biden is that they had the types of interactions with Ukraine that raise eyebrows and invite a closer look. We also all agree that protecting the integrity of American elections should be a top priority for a president. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 20 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: why do you always like to chime in and compliment me on my accomplishments? It’s flattering, but you don’t have to! Showering me with praise won’t make me like you I guess winning a motion is high praise to you. Your response to me shows what little you have as far as facts go. Success is measured by actual accomplishments and you can only claim being 3rd Chair once, and winning a motion. You can only relive those glory days for so long, Al Bundy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 59 minutes ago, Tiberius said: It's crazy how mad people get when others invite corrupt foreign influence into our elections! Crazy man! When Hillary was doing this... "When Hillary was doing this..." So you admit Hillary was doing it? Given the signs that Hillary is resurfacing in the Democratic Party you may be wearing out your welcome there if not worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 THOSE “EXPLOSIVE” UKRAINE TEXTS MAKE ZERO CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT Paul wrote here about a selection of text exchanges among American diplomats that Adam Schiff released on Thursday. Politico, a reliable narrator of the Democratic Party line, termed the texts “explosive.” Politico highlights this one, from then-Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker, dated July 25, the day when President Trump spoke on the phone with President Zelensky: {snip} Here Taylor is mouthing the Democratic Party line, saying that investigating possible corruption in the Obama/Biden administration–the Burisma case–constitutes “help with a political campaign.” The implication is that no matter whether the Biden family did or did not take a $3 million bribe from Burisma (I think it is already quite clear that they did), the matter cannot properly be investigated. But why not? A commenter at Ann Althouse’s site made the point this way: I would just like to announce today that I plan to run in every presidential campaign for the remainder of my natural life. As a result of my perpetual run for the highest office in the land, anything I may have done in the past is entirely off-limits to any investigation. To even suggest I should be investigated is an insult to democracy itself. Thank you and God bless America. … New Rule: Everyone is subject to investigation and prosecution except those running for office as Democrats against Trump. Got it. There is no coherent reason why corruption in the Obama/Biden administration should not be investigated, and urging or pressuring allied countries to carry out such investigations is entirely proper and, one would think, a valuable service to our democracy. Kurt Volker, author of some of the “explosive” emails, submitted testimony to several House committees on Thursday. Sean Davis comments on his testimony at The Federalist, and you can read Volker’s written testimony here. Davis writes: Congressional testimony from the former top American envoy to Ukraine directly contradicts the impeachment narrative offered by congressional Democrats and their media allies. Ambassador Kurt Volker, who served for two years as the top U.S. diplomatic envoy to Ukraine, testified on Thursday that he was never aware of and never took part in any effort to push the Ukrainian government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden or his son Hunter. He also stressed that the interactions between Giuliani and Ukrainian officials were facilitated not to find dirt on Biden, but to assuage concerns that the incoming Ukrainian government would not be able to get a handle on corruption within the country. Several aspects of Volker’s written testimony are interesting. He describes how the Trump administration has reversed Obama’s weak Ukraine policy by standing up to the Russians: More at the link: . 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 Also, IMO, the left has no intention of going through with an impeachment process. They simply want to drag this out until the election and use it to fundraise and create chaos. Works on a number of levels: 1) they can pretend they are doing something when we know they don’t do anything 2) keep any good news with the country buried 3) keep getting people watching the news, etc..money maker for them. 4) keeps trump on his heels I’d love for them the just officially get on with the process. Let’s have everyone get their cards on the table and see where we stand. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted October 7, 2019 Share Posted October 7, 2019 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I guess winning a motion is high praise to you. Your response to me shows what little you have as far as facts go. Success is measured by actual accomplishments and you can only claim being 3rd Chair once, and winning a motion. You can only relive those glory days for so long, Al Bundy. I have won tons of motions and getting any trial experience in the first quarter of your career is an accomplishment when you work at a big firm and only deal with big clients. I am sure you are unaware, but it is out of the firms hands on who leads trials. Giant corporations only pay for senior partners to do that. but anyways, stop sidetracking me on my accomplishments lol. It’s cute, but I’m blushing!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts