Pelosi says Trump has admitted to bribery as impeachment probe intensifies

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

It’s funny because the more I watch the lefts antics, the more I would do anything to keep them out of power. 

And yet it is you who complains of partisanship.

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

Yep totally not partisan at all. 

 

Nothing to stop republicans except for Schiff stopping republicans. 

He didnt stop them. Repubs didnt call them.

[bendejo]

52 minutes ago, Sujo said:

He will tweet that he is totally innocent and rely on people being too dumb to look at the facts. Sadly, for a small percentage of people he will be correct.

Unfortunately that number has been, and still is, 35%

Don't expect it to budge, unless maybe he insults Dolly Parton or any singer that wears a cowboy hat.

 

I noticed that most DT fans smoke cigarettes, seems to be part of it.

 

 

[NanLaew]

54 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

its the presidents constitutional obligation to look at corruption like in ukraine

Beyond your BS regurgitation of the BS 'presidents constitutional obligation' BS, there's corruption in plenty of other countries in the world and most of it is a whole lot worse than the Ukraine's. In the grand order of things, a fair few of these corrupt countries have far more political and economic significance than the Ukraine.

 

So why DJT's sudden, rabid interest with Kyiv's rotten history?

[Jingthing]

20 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

It’s funny because the more I watch the lefts antics, the more I would do anything to keep them out of power. 

Up to you. Please keep it legal. 

[DoctorG]

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Pelosi’s observation is backed by evidence produced and statements by Trump himself and by statements made by his chief of staff.

 

The Leader of the House is correct in her use of the term ‘Bribery’ a term that gets very specific mention in The Constitution, check it out.

 

 

She, and you, are clutching at straws.

[Thainesss]

Just now, NanLaew said:

Beyond your BS regurgitation of the BS 'presidents constitutional obligation' BS, there's corruption in plenty of other countries in the world and most of it is a whole lot worse than the Ukraine's. In the grand order of things, a fair few of these corrupt countries have far more political and economic significance than the Ukraine.

 

So why DJT's sudden, rabid interest with Kyiv's rotten history?

 

Probably the fact that they want an ass-load of taxpayer dollars and have weird ties to American politicians & their family members. 

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

He'll care as much about impeachment as Clinton did.

Impeachment without conviction is meaningless, except to historians. If cleared by the senate, he carries on to win 2020 BECAUSE of the impeachment, IMO.

I too am pretty confident in the resilience of the USA to still bounce back from two terms under the great losership of DJT.

[FritsSikkink]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Never seen a statement where Trump admitted to bribery.

 

Pelosi needs to stay off the bottle.

Maybe start with taking those tinted glasses of.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Up to you. Please keep it legal. 

 

Yeah we'll leave the bike locks, bear spray, and baseball fields to your people. 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

Yeah we'll leave the bike locks, bear spray, and baseball fields to your people. 

Uh huh. 

[NanLaew]

57 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

They are presenting it, in the form of testimony. Testimony is evidence. Or do you think Nancy Pelosi should just present her version of what the witnesses claim? That would be your idea of justice?

Doesn't seem to work too well for DJT with his 'transcript' of his 'perfect' phone call so I agree, present the testimony for qualified persons to decide if it is evidence of perfection.

[Thainesss]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Uh huh. 

 

????

[Chomper Higgot]

55 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

They aren't open and transparent when one side gets to call the witnesses and decides what questioning is appropriate. 

Whata difference a House majority makes.

[Sujo]

Strange how truthful don says he will release a transcript of a call with Z that is irrelevant to the hearing but wont release the transcript of the perfect call that started it all.

[Thainesss]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Whata difference a House majority makes.

 

Glad you're finally admitting its not an open and transparent inquiry like you're been parroting for the last 6 pages. 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

Thats exactly what they are doing already. Pelosi/Schiff decide what witnesses take the seat and what questions can be asked. This isn't justice, its politics. 

You are confusing Impeachment with the judicial process.

 

You’ll get the chance to see justice being executed once Trump is out of office.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Thainesss said:

 

Glad you're finally admitting its not an open and transparent inquiry like you're been parroting for the last 6 pages. 

I’ve admitted nothing of the sort.

 

The Impeachment hearings are being broadcast live on TV, Representatives from both sides of them House get to cross examine the witnesses.

 

Some witnesses subpoenaed by the House have been instructed by Trump not to comply with the Subpoena s, the court case on that is in process.

[NanLaew]

58 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

1 hour ago, Thainesss said:

 

They aren't open and transparent when one side gets to call the witnesses and decides what questioning is appropriate. 

The Dems are just following the rules approved by the Reps in 2015.

 

 “if they find the process unfair, they have only themselves to blame. The House rules that govern this process were adopted in 2015, by the then-Republican majority. And the same Republican leaders leading this criticism helped establish those majority-centric rules at that time”.

Wow @Thainess.... to paraphrase Will Hunting, 'Howd'ya like them apples?!"

[Mavideol]

37 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

You say this like any information given or provided will be portrayed honestly. You and I both know that the objective is to make things look and sound as bad as possible. 
 

I repeat, this is the 3rd impeachment attempt - all of which were glaringly partisan failures. 

assuming , mean really assuming your assumption is correct, did you ever put 2 and 2 together and see what the guy is doing to help Vlad.... stop funding Ukraine, stop sending guns, make Ukraine look bad so Vlad can move in as he wishes, no need to worry about being shot at since the USA is not sending money/guns to Ukraine, invade/take as much as of Ukraine as needed without any resistance, but to avoid any potential scrutiny about this dealings, just for the sake of it,  place some financial sanctions on Russia, the type of sanctions that Russia can circumvent very easy....let Vlad move into Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, and befriends with Iran while Trump is trying (not to hard anyway) to impose sanctions on Iran as well, it's just a game and look at it the way you want, all the cards dealt, do lead to Vlad/Russia, please be objective and take a step back to look at it, after all it's called democracy

[rabas]

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You are confusing Impeachment with the judicial process.

 

You’ll get the chance to see justice being executed once Trump is out of office.

2025 is a really long time to wait.

[DoctorG]

30 minutes ago, bendejo said:

I noticed that most DT fans smoke cigarettes, seems to be part of it.

Wow! I am impressed that you have met/seen more than half of the millions of his fans You must really travel a lot.

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Wow @Thainess.... to paraphrase Will Hunting, 'Howd'ya like them apples?!"

 

It was a quote without a source of the authors opinion of the rules. 

[Thainesss]

11 minutes ago, Mavideol said:

assuming , mean really assuming your assumption is correct, did you ever put 2 and 2 together and see what the guy is doing to help Vlad.... stop funding Ukraine, stop sending guns, make Ukraine look bad so Vlad can move in as he wishes, no need to worry about being shot at since the USA is not sending money/guns to Ukraine, invade/take as much as of Ukraine as needed without any resistance, but to avoid any potential scrutiny about this dealings, just for the sake of it,  place some financial sanctions on Russia, the type of sanctions that Russia can circumvent very easy....let Vlad move into Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Cuba, and befriends with Iran while Trump is trying (not to hard anyway) to impose sanctions on Iran as well, it's just a game and look at it the way you want, all the cards dealt, do lead to Vlad/Russia, please be objective and take a step back to look at it, after all it's called democracy

 

You clearly do not have any idea of Ukrainian/American politics and military aid pre-trump. Who let Russia move into Crimea? Who let Ukraine flounder under threat from Russian invasion while blustering about red lines and not crossing them? Yeah. 

[roobaa01]

i wonder why the dems have not issued a subpoena to bolton ??? would too much <deleted> hit the dem fan ???

 

wbr

roobaa01

[NanLaew]

44 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

50 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Seriously? With the Ukrainian almost two decades-long litany of successive elected parties hoodwinking their partners, peers and the people who voted for them just for personal gain and aggrandizement as well as appeasing Moscow, you reckon they can be trusted to give an honest appraisal of how squeaky clean they think they are?

 

IMHO, there's never been a nation quite like it for throwing their own people under the bus which is why the suddenly invisible Rudy Giuliani should be a bit worried, especially after waiving his personal phones and tablets full of exoneration all over the media.

Appeasing Moscow? Someone over here need to do a little research (you) on the situation over the last few years and who left Ukraine high and dry. 

You are the guy watching 'Short Attention Span Theater' with your Ukraine observations based over 'the last few years'.

 

Maybe you missed my earlier "almost two decades-long" reference to their lamentable record on being up-front and honest with each other? Maybe you don't remember Viktor Yanukovych (exiled in Russia) or the assassination attempt by slow poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko (by KGB inspired methods)? Then there was former Ukraine PM Yulia Tymoshenko's three years in jail on trumped-up (sic) corruption charges. The Putinistas thought they could emulate the Russian Presidential/Prime Ministerial wealth-garnering magic roundabout but didn't factor in that most Ukrainians didn't agree.

 

By the same token, the current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is a total political neophyte going up against the oligarchs and patriarchs at home. Must be exciting times for him when the personal lawyer of the USA's 'self-made' pseudo-oligarch and once-upon-a-POTUS is beating an unofficial path to his door, no?

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, roobaa01 said:

i wonder why the dems have not issued a subpoena to bolton ??? would too much <deleted> hit the dem fan ???

 

wbr

roobaa01

Explained here:

 

The move [not to subpoena and await court ruling] deprives Mr. Bolton of a legal avenue to challenge a subpoena and puts pressure on him to accept the ruling in a separate case that raises the same legal question of whether close presidential advisers are entirely immune from testifying.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/house-impeachment-investigators-wont-subpoena-john-bolton-11573147474

 

Hold assumptions on what might hit the fan.

[Thainesss]

4 minutes ago, jany123 said:

So basically you believe that the lawmakers should forgo proper investigation and simply charge the trump with a crime such that he can be put on trial, without properly investigating the truth of the allegation.

 

thats called a witch hunt. Shame on you. Give the useless pumpkin the benefit of a proper investigation, after all, innocent people usually weather investigations leaving no need for a trial.

 

Democrats belief that charging an offender first requires that the burden of proof be met prior to charging...  Are republicans that different in their view of how the American justice system works, that they believe charging requires no proof or incomplete proof?

 

If true, Gawd help the courts being loaded up with republican judges.

 

But this isn't an investigation at all, as has been constantly repeated in this very thread. It does not have 2 sides. There is no justice involved. There is no prosecution and defense. Its public meetings framed in a politically beneficial way for the majority party. 

 

And a side note - people are constantly ruined by baseless investigations both inside and out of politics. 

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Thainesss said:

 

You clearly do not have any idea of Ukrainian/American politics and military aid pre-trump. Who let Russia move into Crimea? Who let Ukraine flounder under threat from Russian invasion while blustering about red lines and not crossing them? Yeah. 

Who is being impeached for illegally withholding military aid from Ukraine in an attempt to bribe the Ukrainian government into fabricating an investigation into one of his political rivals?

[Thainesss]

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hold assumptions on what might hit the fan.

 

He says un-ironically while providing his own overbearing assumptions, constantly.