Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: Every politician runs on ending corruption your using a very vague and unrelated matter to justify a narrative the facts do not support. All politicians talk, I agree. Trump ran on it, there's literally two years of tape of him making claims (whether he meant it or not is irrelevant) that was his goal. He enacted policies in other countries in line with this campaign plank -- and he withheld money from other countries over corruption concerns (Libya). So there's a record of him doing exactly that. Which makes the case weaker, you can admit that, no? 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: There were no other far reaching investigations into Ukranian corruption Many have testified that he only cared about Biden in regards to Ukraine. Again, you're wrong. The investigation into Ukraine and the 2016 election within the Trump administration began in 2017. Two years ago. The facts are not on your side. Only what the media has told you... but you have to think beyond what they say. These are the same people who (likely) convinced you that Trump was a Russian stooge and stole the election by working with Putin. They pushed this lie, and it was a lie, for three years without evidence to support it. Why keep taking them at their word when you can see everything I'm saying for yourself and judge its merits? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Every politician runs on ending corruption your using a very vague and unrelated matter to justify a narrative the facts do not support. There were no other far reaching investigations into Ukranian corruption Many have testified that he only cared about Biden in regards to Ukraine. Biden was the only corrupt America in Ukraine? Literally anyone testifying on the matter says that Trump cared only about Biden when it came to Ukraine, this idea that there was a widespread corruption probe is nonsense. And guess what it doesn't matter he had no digression over the funds and clearly was using them to gain a favor he thought was by his own admission politically valuable to him thus violating the law. huh?!? You’re hopeless. if finding out what happened in 2016 and investigating corruption from a sitting Vice President don’t do it for you, you’re simply a hopeless American. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 9 hours ago, jrober38 said: Then lock him up. Lock them all up. You can't keep having it both ways, blindly supporting Trump because he's your guy. These are somehow dumber than all your Josh Allen posts ?? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No, you can't accept donations from foreign sources. You can purchase services...say, purchasing a salacious dossier from British private investigation service on your political opponent. This isn't true unless Trump wrote the cheque himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, jrober38 said: SONDLAND WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST Is a direct line to the president similar to Bob's "tapes"? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 46 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: When people mention quid pro quo, extortion, bribery is all describing the same action of using the governments resources that you are not authorized to have digression over to gain a political favor from a foreign entity. You are being purposefully obtuse and dense. No, your assumptions are as terrible as today's witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RochesterRob Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: You just can’t stand hearing contrary opinions. That’s small. but look at it this way, it’s small minded people like you that required us to have the first amendment, which is a good thing. Project much? Karma is gonna catch you. Have fun dumpster diving in back of Wegman's tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 THIS was their big “witness” today HE PRESUMES A LOT: Ambassador Sondland Admits He Has No Evidence Trump Tied Ukraine Military Aid to Investigations Other Than His ‘Own Presumption.’ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Saying Trump only wanted an investigation into the Bidens is as disingenuous as claiming that since Russia interfered in the elections and Trump won, Trump must have colluded with them. But when you're desperate to see something happen, you'll try whatever you can to make it happen. No, he wanted them to investigate: a) election interference against him in 2016, so that it doesn't happen again in 2020, and b) long-standing corruption, before sending hundreds of millions more of our money to be wasted/stolen by a new regime/boss. And it's easy to believe he would want those things and hard to argue they shouldn't be done, even for the most TDS-afflicted person. Investigating corruption meant (among other things) investigating Burisma. Where people differ is whether the Bidens should have been implicated. Considering Joe was the point-man for Ukraine and responsible for massive amounts of money to be given to them (or not), and the fact that Hunter had no business whatsoever being a highly-paid member on their board and Joe boasting about getting a prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma and withholding funds unless they did, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want them investigated. Now if you buy the line that he was cleared of any wrong-doing, you should ask yourself "where, when, how and by whom?" As for hiding behind the fact that he's running for President, that isn't a reason not to do it and in fact is even more of a reason to do it. Now admittedly I'm sure Trump relished the chance to stick it to Joe, but that's neither here nor there. Trump didn't create that situation. And if you think that a pee tape and a phantom meeting in Prague are valid reasons to try to take down a Presidency... 4 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, jrober38 said: Actually it is. You can't accept anything of value from a foreign government that could help you in a political election in the United States. You really have no idea what you're talking about. If you knew enough to know what you don't know you'd be humiliated right now. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, billsfan89 said: I literally defined the specific criminal code he violated by any number of means. This is a message board not a court of law. You couldn't even get past a probable cause hearing on that charge. Not even if the President said under oath that he threatened to withhold the funds if they didn't give him the Burisma info, and that the only reason he wanted the information was because he knew it would implicate Biden. Not with that charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 13 minutes ago, Rob's House said: You couldn't even get past a probable cause hearing on that charge. Not even if the President said under oath that he threatened to withhold the funds if they didn't give him the Burisma info, and that the only reason he wanted the information was because he knew it would implicate Biden. Not with that charge. It sounds like it's at least 3rd degree Quid Pro Quo with extenuating circumstances. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, jrober38 said: This isn't true unless Trump wrote the cheque himself. Cheque? No wonder you have no clue what you're talking about. You're either Canadian or Euro. Can't even spell check right! There is no cheque here in the USA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 3 hours ago, jrober38 said: This is a joke right? 3 hours ago, billsfan89 said: Every politician runs on ending corruption your using a very vague and unrelated matter to justify a narrative the facts do not support. If you were paying attention, President Trump laid it out during his campaign: The music in the video is annoying, but this will smack you in the head with truth. And I encourage everyone to watch this again (if you have seen it before) given what has turned up in the last 3 years. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Doc said: Saying Trump only wanted an investigation into the Bidens is as disingenuous as claiming that since Russia interfered in the elections and Trump won, Trump must have colluded with them. But when you're desperate to see something happen, you'll try whatever you can to make it happen. No, he wanted them to investigate: a) election interference against him in 2016, so that it doesn't happen again in 2020, and b) long-standing corruption, before sending hundreds of millions more of our money to be wasted/stolen by a new regime/boss. And it's easy to believe he would want those things and hard to argue they shouldn't be done, even for the most TDS-afflicted person. Investigating corruption meant (among other things) investigating Burisma. Where people differ is whether the Bidens should have been implicated. Considering Joe was the point-man for Ukraine and responsible for massive amounts of money to be given to them (or not), and the fact that Hunter had no business whatsoever being a highly-paid member on their board and Joe boasting about getting a prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma and withholding funds unless they did, I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want them investigated. Now if you buy the line that he was cleared of any wrong-doing, you should ask yourself "where, when, how and by whom?" As for hiding behind the fact that he's running for President, that isn't a reason not to do it and in fact is even more of a reason to do it. Now admittedly I'm sure Trump relished the chance to stick it to Joe, but that's neither here nor there. Trump didn't create that situation. And if you think that a pee tape and a phantom meeting in Prague are valid reasons to try to take down a Presidency... No Trump didn't create the situation and while I agree with much of what you have to say. We have the newly elected president of Ukraine and the very 1st important decision he is asked to make to insure Ukraines security/safety requires a possible compromise of his integrity. Zielinski didn't create the situation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 3 hours ago, B-Man said: THIS was their big “witness” today HE PRESUMES A LOT: Ambassador Sondland Admits He Has No Evidence Trump Tied Ukraine Military Aid to Investigations Other Than His ‘Own Presumption.’ You put that picture in backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Trump’s new “NO QUID PRO QUO” talking point is a trick Trump claims a phone call with Sondland is evidence of his innocence. It might just be evidence he knew he got caught. But an examination of the context surrounding Trump’s September 9 call with Sondland indicates that it’s not as exonerating as Trump would like people to believe. “Getting caught is no defense” The timeline is key. The call happened more than a week after then Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire informed the White House counsel about the existence of a whistleblower complaint detailing how Trump abused his power by trying to leverage the Ukrainians into doing political favors for him. So, assuming word of the whistleblower’s complaint percolated up to the president, Trump’s call with Sondland came after he knew the jig was up. Indeed, that very same day, Michael Atkinson, inspector general for the intelligence community, notified the House Intelligence Committee of the whistleblower complaint and said he found that the accusations rose to the level of “urgent concern.” https://www.vox.com/2019/11/20/20974641/trump-no-quid-pro-quo-sondland 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Hedge said: If you were paying attention, President Trump laid it out during his campaign: The music in the video is annoying, but this will smack you in the head with truth. And I encourage everyone to watch this again (if you have seen it before) given what has turned up in the last 3 years. Thanks! Good stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts