Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

Recommended Posts

Troll posts removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I reject your premise that Shokin was universally seen as corrupt. In fact, it appears it was the Obama regime that was behind the firing the whole time. Furthermore, a bunch of corrupt governments all saying some other guy is corrupt isn't very impressive.

 

As far as illicit: I don't recall using the term. Thus, I am puzzled as to your attention to it in context of a response to me.

 

As for the "are you saying" line? I'm saying what I said, not what you'd like to say I said.

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/02/donald-trump-joe-biden-hunter-biden-baseless-claim-corrupt-column/3832174002/

 

“after Shokin was elevated to the post of prosecutor general, every member of the Group of Seven leading industrial nations, including the U.S. government, along with the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, began agitating to get rid of him.”

 

ok... you got me. “Universally” was a bad choice of words. You disagree, for example. However, the leaders of the industrialized free world, including the divided states, on whoms behalf Biden was acting, see things differently to you.

 

Regards my use of “illicit”... per my earlier, which you bounced off, corruption (which you accuse Biden of) includes illicit behavior, and my post included the question “in what way did Biden personally or illicitly benefit?” .... I introduced it in the definition of corruption... you quoted that. That’s the context.... If nothing illicit was achieved, perhaps nothing corrupt happened, in referring to the definition of corruption

 

Regards my inserting “are you saying?”, I asked this not because I wish to control your narrative, but rather, because all you said was “ he benefited because he protected his son from an ongoing investigation”.... which doesn’t really explain how he benefited, and which is also an incorrect statement (or repeated lie), as there was no ongoing investigation

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

“Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out.”

 

further... the VP did not have the authority to withhold the 1 billion... when it was pointed out that only the president had the authority, Biden is quoted (a snippet excluded by the trumps followers) as saying “call him”... given that little gem, the corruption you ascribe to Biden, should actually be pinned on Obama, although and again, when looking at the definition of corruption, the boxes still remain unticked

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, wayned said:

unless a good portion of the GOP Senators finally grow some gonads

 

Perhaps they actually don't think what Trump did meets the criteria for a high crime or misdemeanour.

Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wayned said:

I do hope and think that "WE the People" will replace him at the ballot box.

The coasts don't win when the entire middle America votes against them.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once it gets to the Senate it becomes fuzzy. There are no set rules for the trial, the Senate makes up the rules and it's unclear to me how that process works.  One thing that could happen is that, before any evidence is heard, Massacre Mitch could hold a vote to dismiss the case which only takes a simple majority to do and it could all end right there since The GOP has the majority.  I suspect that McConnell will try that and hope that no more than three of the GOP jump ship.

 

Now you tell me exactly where I am wrong!

Edited by wayned
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't done anything to try to get him out of office but I still think that he is a scumbag, a crook, corrupt, a racist, a white nationalist, a psychopath and many other things.


If I believed like you I would feel morally obligated to do all I could to get him out of office.

Fortunately, I live on planet Earth, an can still remember how the left all loved him before he saved the planet from Hillary.

That said, I could live with his VP running as an incumbent against any of the anti-ists the dems are running
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...