Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president There is. It's called the Black Ledger. Wait for Horowitz. And this text: "Potus wants to know everything we are doing" in terms of investigating Trump. Edited September 25, 2019 by Deranged Rhino 1
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president but there is a transcript of Trump asking the Ukraine president asking him to look into a potential next president. There's a difference there but I don't think it's an impeachable offense. Like most things with Trump, he's done a lot of sketchy things but none of them rise to the level of being illegal. High crimes and Misdemeanors has quite a broad reading
SoCal Deek Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president but there is a transcript of Trump asking the Ukraine president asking him to look into a potential next president. There's a difference there but I don't think it's an impeachable offense. Like most things with Trump, he's done a lot of sketchy things but none of them rise to the level of being illegal. Read it again. I said the Obama Administration.
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Whataboutisms do absolve anyone of anything. Damn, DR is just throwing his entire twitter feed at us! Help, help, we are drowning in far right wing tweets! It's pathetic. Does he have a life?
Doc Brown Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: Read it again. I said the Obama Administration. I read it. You were comparing apples to oranges because there was no Obama transcript saying to look into Donald Trump.
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: It's pathetic. Does he have a life? You are responding to his tweets, so what does that say about you? I guess you can't post messages (tweets. also) on a message board any more. Edited September 25, 2019 by njbuff
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: I read it. You were comparing apples to oranges because there was no Obama transcript saying to look into Donald Trump. Except for texts between investigators talking about Obama wanting to be kept in the loop about their investigation into Trump... 1
Doc Brown Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Except for texts between investigators talking about Obama wanting to be kept in the loop about their investigation into Trump... Not the same thing.
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, njbuff said: You are responding to his tweets, so what does that say about you? I guess you can't post messages (tweets. also) on a message board any more. Please block me again - you were doing so well
Capco Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: High crimes and Misdemeanors has quite a broad reading If the president is the target, I don't think that's the pertinent question. The question is: is there enough evidence to try him in the Republican-controlled Senate, as it will be the Senate's interpretation of High Crimes that matters. The only way impeachment on Trump goes all the way forward is if there is quid pro quo, imo. Edited September 25, 2019 by Capco
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: Not the same thing. You're right. Obama is talking to FBI agents asking them to investigate his political rival without cause (as we now know). The other is Trump talking to a foreign leader about what happened in 2016. One is WAY worse. And it's not Trump's. 4
SoCal Deek Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: I read it. You were comparing apples to oranges because there was no Obama transcript saying to look into Donald Trump. Oh come on! We’re on a bigger point here. Apparently the Left believes we should give a foreign government tons of my money but never stop to ask if it’s being laundered into the pockets of politicians or their families? Maybe I’m crazy but I’d be pissed if we weren’t asking these type of questions! Everyone should be. 4
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Gary Busey said: Please block me again - you were doing so well I don't block anyone Sparky. Even if I don't agree with someone's opinion, I don't try to shut them down, unlike the braindead left. 1
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 And it’s so pathetic people think whistleblowers can only be credible if they have direct knowledge of something. I dont expect much from some of you though (“durrrrrr they didn’t even here da call”)
Doc Brown Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're right. Obama is talking to FBI agents asking them to investigate his political rival without cause (as we now know). The other is Trump talking to a foreign leader about what happened in 2016. One is WAY worse. And it's not Trump's. No official transcript with Obama.
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 6 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: You do realize hearsay is a legal term? And you do realize you are misusing it? So you're not just an adjunct law professor, but you're a bad one... 1
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, SoCal Deek said: Oh come on! We’re on a bigger point here. Apparently the Left believes we should give a foreign government tons of my money but never stop to ask if it’s being laundered into the pockets of politicians or their families? Maybe I’m crazy but I’d be pissed if we weren’t asking these type of questions! Everyone should be. That's the biggest component going under-discussed here. The pay-for-play angle of foreign aid dollars. Give big dollars to a foreign country (washing it), then they turn around and give that money back to the politicians who worked on the aid packages through middle men (or in Joe's case, his son). This isn't the first time this has happened. Not even the first time Biden did something like this. How do you think Pelosi became worth 200m while making 140k a year? It wasn't through book sales. 1
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Capco said: The question is: is there enough evidence to try him in the Republican-controlled Senate, as it will be the Senate's interpretation of High Crimes that matters. Depends if they ever see the full Whistelblower Report.
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 The whistleblower was one of the guys that deflated Tom Brady's footballs. Now I get why everyone in here is in an uproar. It's NE week. ?
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Doc Brown said: No official transcript with Obama. ... Yet. Wait for Horowitz. What we do have is the lead agent investigating Trump ADMITTING that 44 wanted to be in the loop on everything. That's pretty damning. But your argument that Obama was better at concealing it isn't very compelling in light of the two charges. We have it proven Obama's DOJ was spying on political opponents throughout much of his two terms (IRS scandal, spying on congress scandal, the spying on the media scandal -- then the DNI report listing 85% of NSA searches were without merit). 1
Recommended Posts