Jump to content

Democrats vow to insulate impeachment inquiry from 'sham investigations'


webfact

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Actually, roobaa01, I'm grateful for this impeachment sham.  For one, this represents the Dems last gasp at their 3-year long effort to oust Trump.  When the sham is eventually exposed as the sham it is via this absurd farce not one Dem will ever be willing to try it again.  Trump should be freed of all of their attempted shackling during his second term.

 

Secondly, it will drive a stake into the Democratic party.  Whether fatal or not will remain to be seen.

 

For another, this sham will not simply die a quiet death.  There will be repercussions.

i would like to know @tippaporn how much tax payer money was wasted on this ukrain hoax after the russian hoax wasted already usd $ 36 million.

there was also news that acc. to the ig general eric ciaramella was involved in donation misdeeds.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 306
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Some telling direct testimony from Vindman:

 

Castor:

"The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time," Castor said. "You know, on page 3, he says 'whatever you can do.' He ends the first paragraph on page 3, 'if that's possible.' At the top of page 4, 'if you could speak to him, that would be great.' 'So whatever you can do.' Again, at the top of page 4, 'if you can look into it.' Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn't trying to be demanding here?"

 

Vindman:

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

 

Castor:

"If that's possible.'

 

Vindman:

"Yeah. So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

 

I've said it from day one.  You can interpret Trump's words in different ways.  And I've said it before as well:  your bias will blind you to the truth.  The left is so utterly biased that their bias allows for only a single interpretation.  And it's the wrong interpretation.  But they'll most likely go to their graves still believing Orange Man Bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cryingdick said:

 

The reason they use that term is it sounds more sophisticated. If they accused Trump of bribery their case would be dead in the water. I suggestion you learn the legal definition of what constitutes bribery.

What on earth? In the legal definition of bribery, we find the following:

 

Quote

Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.

...

Solicitation of a bribe also constitutes a crime and is completed regardless of whether the solicitation results in the receipt of a valuable gift.

It's that second section that's important. Trump (a public official) was clearly soliciting something of value from the Ukrainian president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, roobaa01 said:

i would like to know @tippaporn how much tax payer money was wasted on this ukrain hoax after the russian hoax wasted already usd $ 36 million.

there was also news that acc. to the ig general eric ciaramella was involved in donation misdeeds.

 

wbr

roobaa01

His attorneys started a Go Fund Me campaign which has raised upwards of $200,000 (which will all go to those same lawyers who probably realize they'll never get paid otherwise).  It's being investigated for at least a few issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Some telling direct testimony from Vindman:

 

Castor:

"The president in the transcript uses some, you know, words of hedging from time to time," Castor said. "You know, on page 3, he says 'whatever you can do.' He ends the first paragraph on page 3, 'if that's possible.' At the top of page 4, 'if you could speak to him, that would be great.' 'So whatever you can do.' Again, at the top of page 4, 'if you can look into it.' Is it reasonable to conclude that those words hedging for some might, you know, lead people to conclude that the president wasn't trying to be demanding here?"

 

Vindman:

"I think people want to hear, you know, what they have as already preconceived notions," Vindman answered, in what may have been one of the more revealing moments of the deposition. "I'd also point your attention to 'whatever you can do, it's very important to do it if that's possible.'"

 

Castor:

"If that's possible.'

 

Vindman:

"Yeah. So I guess you can interpret it in different ways."

 

I've said it from day one.  You can interpret Trump's words in different ways.  And I've said it before as well:  your bias will blind you to the truth.  The left is so utterly biased that their bias allows for only a single interpretation.  And it's the wrong interpretation.  But they'll most likely go to their graves still believing Orange Man Bad.

The straws are being clutched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

His attorneys started a Go Fund Me campaign which has raised upwards of $200,000 (which will all go to those same lawyers who probably realize they'll never get paid otherwise).  It's being investigated for at least a few issues.

Which is relevant to what trump did how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GroveHillWanderer said:

What on earth? In the legal definition of bribery, we find the following:

 

It's that second section that's important. Trump (a public official) was clearly soliciting something of value from the Ukrainian president.

It's that second section that's important. Trump (a public official) was clearly soliciting something of value from the Ukrainian president.

 

My God, man.  That is your interpretation!  It is not established fact.  Are you truly incapable of telling the difference?  Or does your hate for Trump cause you to interpret it that way?  For myself I know what the answer is.  LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Cryingdick said:

All of this comes down to the dems being deathly afraid of an election. Not smart enough to beat Trump.

Not so, Cryingdick.  Trump has pledged to drain the swamp.  As Hillary purportedly said, "If that <deleted> b*stard Trump wins, we all hang from nooses."  Many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, who have been involved in criminal activity have a great deal to fear if they get exposed by the swamp draining.  The election is key, too, for them to put up another swamp creature who will then sweep all the crimes under the rug.  Does anyone think that Barr and Durham's investigations would have happened had Hillary won?  That Comey and most every other top FBI brass would have been ousted?  Would Loretta Lynch now be sitting on a Supreme Court bench?

 

The stakes to take out Trump are higher than most suspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Cryingdick said:

All of this comes down to the dems being deathly afraid of an election. Not smart enough to beat Trump.

Dems just protecting the constitution. Dems have raised more funds than the Reps and should relished the election opportunity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

But they'll most likely go to their graves still believing Orange Man Bad.

No, surely not, no one could believe the orange man is bad...........

 

After all he's only ever been guilty of declaring bankruptcy five times (thereby robbing the everyday workingman of wages), employing illegal immigrants to build his hotels, stealing from a children's charity, boasting about being able to grab pussy when he wants to, being an adulterer and consistently lying about almost anything and everything!

 

Those are traits which should be avoided in anybody, but to have an orange man, who is also stupid, in charge of one of the world's superpowers, is in itself just plain dumb. Evidence of that is out there for all to see and is evident in his comments about "where is global warming when we need it", that the Americans took control of the airports in the war back in 1776 (hmmm...) and the "covfefe " mystery.

 

How the Trump supporters see past all of this is in itself a mystery (perhaps they share some of his traits?) and this man should be removed from office ASAP, and that will help with draining the swamp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

No, surely not, no one could believe the orange man is bad...........

 

After all he's only ever been guilty of declaring bankruptcy five times (thereby robbing the everyday workingman of wages), employing illegal immigrants to build his hotels, stealing from a children's charity, boasting about being able to grab pussy when he wants to, being an adulterer and consistently lying about almost anything and everything!

 

Those are traits which should be avoided in anybody, but to have an orange man, who is also stupid, in charge of one of the world's superpowers, is in itself just plain dumb. Evidence of that is out there for all to see and is evident in his comments about "where is global warming when we need it", that the Americans took control of the airports in the war back in 1776 (hmmm...) and the "covfefe " mystery.

 

How the Trump supporters see past all of this is in itself a mystery (perhaps they share some of his traits?) and this man should be removed from office ASAP, and that will help with draining the swamp.

Trump is anything but stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Funny how when you hit the lefties with facts, logic, and honesty things start to get real quite on these threads.

The reality disconnect among the base Trump supporters is on such an astounding level that there must exist a term in clinical psychology that describes this mental condition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Funny how when you hit the lefties with facts, logic, and honesty things start to get real quite on these threads.

If Trump fans were required to use facts, logic and honesty then it'll get even quieter as you lot won't be able to post anything.

Anyway, it's always fun hearing your thoughts (even though we all know your bias blinds you to the truth) and I look forward to debating you over the next few days/weeks as the live show hits town.

As they say though 'buckle up boys, you're in for a bumpy ride!' 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump is anything but stupid.

Okay then, perhaps you'd like to tell us which airports the Americans took over/guarded in 1776 during the Revolutionary War.......because they certainly did according to the Orange man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Okay then, perhaps you'd like to tell us which airports the Americans took over/guarded in 1776 during the Revolutionary War.......because they certainly did according to the Orange man.

And the Kurds didn't help at Normandy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, roobaa01 said:

i would like to know @tippaporn how much tax payer money was wasted on this ukrain hoax after the russian hoax wasted already usd $ 36 million.

there was also news that acc. to the ig general eric ciaramella was involved in donation misdeeds.

 

wbr

roobaa01

$36 million is less than Trump spends on promoting himself at rallys and playing golf each year 5555

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

On the subject of "sham investigations". We all learn recently that the USA threatening to withhold aid to other nations unless they do x,y,z is totally illegal and leads to impeachment for the POTUS. well fair enough, but what this?......

 

"The U.S. has warned Pakistan that it will withhold $300 million in military assistance if Islamabad doesn’t do more to crack down on"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-threatens-to-withhold-pakistan-aid-1440163925

 

 Note. I post this not to make an off topic troll but to prove to the world that US aid is routinely used to pressure the recipient. Something democrats would be wise to consider at this stage.

apples and oranges, completely out of context 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MAGA 2020 said:

Obviously you didn't read the transcript, this will end very badly for the Socialist Democrats, who sole purpose of trying I repeat TRYING to remove President Trump is to keep covered the wrongs and corrupt dealings they have committed. President Trump will be reelected bank on that Snowflakes 

Obviously NO ONE read the transcript, because so far, it hasn't been released!

What we all have read by now, is an edited version of the transcript and even that one is damning beyond any doubt of a normal and sane person!

The real transcript, you and all the Trump- supporters want us to read, was so damning, it was put on a secure server and has not yet been released! 

 

Please try to follow reality!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

If Trump fans were required to use facts, logic and honesty then it'll get even quieter as you lot won't be able to post anything.

Anyway, it's always fun hearing your thoughts (even though we all know your bias blinds you to the truth) and I look forward to debating you over the next few days/weeks as the live show hits town.

As they say though 'buckle up boys, you're in for a bumpy ride!' 

 

 

 

 

 

and there it is again; agree with your biased opinion=you are smart and the  "truth" shines

 

disagree=you are stupid and "falsehoods" are everywhere

 

and the pseudo intellectuals will all agree...on tvf

 

 

how about just wait for the success/failure of the current democratic

attempt to circumvent an election?

 

what will be the next attempt? will it ever be enough if you keep losing these ridiculous attempts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

apples and oranges, completely out of context 

I disagree. It was an easy way to show the dems are just fine with the concept of "quid pro quo" as it pertains to foreign policy and aid so long as it themselves doing it. Others can not use that method. They will be impeached.

 

An apples and oranges out of context approach could be used to highlight the sheer hypocrisy (and sillyness)of the situation. For ex Trumps predecessor invaded Libya and Syria on suspicious premises and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and civil strife, slavery and violence that continues to this day. Nobody batted an eyelid and he got the nobel award. Trump has a phone call with another world leader and asks him to look into corruption and it's the end of the world, meltdown and temper tantrum the likes of which have never been seen before. Certainly makes you wonder.....

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...