|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 30, 2019 10:58:52 GMT -8
Everything you've said about the impeachment so far has been wrong. There's no reason to suspect you're right about this.
|
|
duke
Statesman
Posts: 681
|
Post by duke on Oct 30, 2019 12:01:28 GMT -8
That's ironic coming from the likes of you. Most everything you've said for the past 3 years has been based on lies. Your day of reckoning will be a pleasure to watch.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Oct 30, 2019 13:27:08 GMT -8
......... including that Trump mentioned tapes of former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a source familiar with the matter.......I say let's have a look at an actual verbatim transcript of the call. I couldn't agree more. I would also like to know what these tapes contained. What type of activity is documented in those tapes that made a US president so interested in obtaining them? If the tapes demonstrated something illegal done by a sitting vice president, then I think there is justification for a current president requesting the evidence and for the justice department to follow-up on it. If Donald Trump was in fact making a quid pro quo of allowing the aid to go through to Ukraine in return for purely political information, then that is a serious offense. But you will have to acknowledge, pagan, that as Duke said for three years now we've been hearing about these reported "high crimes and misdemeanors" and "bomb shells" and collusion and obstruction, etc., etc......... all leading to zip other than a monumental waste of time. The skepticism is well founded.............Luca |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 30, 2019 18:47:25 GMT -8
Born in the former Soviet Union, speaks Russian fluently.....but is trying to bring down Trump?
Dems: "A Patriot!"
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 30, 2019 21:40:25 GMT -8
What Lt.Col. Vindman's testimony actually was... Vindman says White House omitted Trump's reference to Biden tapes in transcript of Zelensky callThe National Security Council's top Ukraine expert told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he tried to make changes to the White House's rough transcript of the July phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine's President, including that Trump mentioned tapes of former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that one example of his attempts to change the transcript was to include Trump telling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky there were tapes of Biden, which The New York Times reported occurred where there's an ellipsis in the transcript that was released. The change was not made. The assertion that some portion of the conversation was replaced by an ellipsis contradicts the White House's statement in September that the ellipses in the transcript did not represent missing words or phrases. It also contradicts the President who has insisted the transcript the White House released was an exact depiction of the call, even though the memo itself describes it as rough.www.cnn.com/2019/10/30/politics/alexander-vindman-testimony-white-house-transcript/index.htmlI say let's have a look at an actual verbatim transcript of the call.1. So Vindman admits he tried to tamper with the transcript in order to further his own anti-Trump narrative. Great. 2. The "tapes" are obviously Biden's bragging about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired in 2015 in exchange for receiving $1B in U.S. aid--you know, the prosecutor who was investigating Biden's son. I'm not sure how this helps the case against Trump, though it lends greater urgency to the need to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden. If Trump was referring (allegedly) to some other "tapes" let's find out what those are about. They can't be good for Biden. And again we're going back to the old chestnut that "we don't have the actual transcript", because clearly that's where we'll find the smoking gun that will finally bring down Trump. Now let me get this theory straight:Donald Trump, speaking to the president of Ukraine.......knowing already that Ukrainian officials previously worked with the DNC to undermine him in the 2016 election.......and knowing that at least a dozen or more national security and CIA staff are listening in on this call.....and that his conversations with other heads of state have already been leaked in the past.......is going to propose something illegal.......and then orchestrate an elaborate plan to 'cover up' the true contents of the call?  |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 30, 2019 22:05:46 GMT -8
......... including that Trump mentioned tapes of former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a source familiar with the matter.......I say let's have a look at an actual verbatim transcript of the call. I couldn't agree more. I would also like to know what these tapes contained. What type of activity is documented in those tapes that made a US president so interested in obtaining them? If the tapes demonstrated something illegal done by a sitting vice president, then I think there is justification for a current president requesting the evidence and for the justice department to follow-up on it. If Donald Trump was in fact making a quid pro quo of allowing the aid to go through to Ukraine in return for purely political information, then that is a serious offense.Anything related to Joe Biden and Ukraine, since it concerns actions undertaken in his official capacity as Vice-President, is ipso facto in the national interest--falling under the purview of the President of the United States (that'd be Donald Trump) to ensure that U.S. foreign aid is not being squandered or used for corrupt purposes. It could not therefore be "purely political." No one is above the law. And that includes Democrats running for President. But Hillary Clinton and the DNC paying Christopher Steele (a foreigner) to cook up false accusations from Russian sources (also foreigners) against a private citizen in 2016 (that'd be Donald Trump, again).....now THAT would be an example of enlisting another country to influence an election for purely political purposes. Just sayin'...... |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 30, 2019 23:20:42 GMT -8
Joe Biden is pressuring Congress to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf by calling for the investigation and impeachment of his political opponent. We cannot let him get away with this outrageous behavior. Shame on those who support him.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 3:45:13 GMT -8
Of course it is and of course he did. He's not even smart enough to deny it. Just ask Judge Napolitano: Judge Andrew Napolitano: Proof of Trump’s impeachable offenses plain to seeLast week found Republicans in Congress complaining loud and long that the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with the House Oversight and Foreign Affairs committees, all bipartisan and under the leadership of Rep. Adam Schiff, were violating the rules of the House of Representatives by interviewing witnesses about impeachment behind closed doors. They derided Schiff's hearings as a "secret impeachment."
President Trump called the hearings a hoax. When some pointed out that the initial round of government interviews of witnesses is always conducted behind closed doors to facilitate candor, Senate Republicans supported the president and condemned the House process. Nevertheless, the House rules, which were adopted in 2015, when Republicans had the majority, clearly authorize the process that Schiff, D-Calif., is utilizing....
Specifically, Trump held up $391 million in American military hardware and financial aid to Ukraine – which is at war with Russia after the Russian seizure and continual occupation of what was until 2014 a Ukrainian province – until Ukrainian prosecutors commenced a criminal investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter....
Trump admits he held up the $391 million. He admits he asked for a favor from the Ukrainian president. And he admits that the favor was to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son. He even gilded the lily by publicly asking the Chinese government to investigate Biden.
Enter Attorney General William Barr. After knowledge of the presidential holdup of the $391 million in aid to Ukraine became public, the president asked Barr for a formal legal opinion that dirt on a political opponent is not a thing of value.
Barr had his researchers and writers in the Office of Legal Counsel oblige. That legal opinion, which Trump has touted as a form of exoneration, has been so widely mocked in legal and political circles – because dirt on an opponent is the most valuable commodity for a political campaign, and candidates pay dearly for it – that congressional Republicans have stopped referring to it. They know better...
One can see that the reason Republicans have been attacking the process of impeachment is largely because there is no credible defense to the proof of impeachment. That proof has been hiding in plain sight – in the president's public words and the context to be provided by witnesses – and will soon be revealed...
With the process soon to be as Republicans have demanded, and with the proof of impeachable offenses plain to see, to what will the president's allies resort as a defense? They will claim that that the federal crimes of soliciting campaign assistance from foreign governments and bribery aren't impeachable offenses and that Trump was misunderstood because he exaggerates all the time and often doesn't mean what he says.
And then the American public will decide if all this is skim milk or cream.www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-andrew-napolitano-hiding-plain-sightEven the TV judge at FOX News knows that trump is a crook. I don't believe that your skepticism is well founded, nor do I think the Mueller investigation was a waste of time. People were charged and found guilty of crimes. The investigation did not lead to "zip". Criminals went to jail, and wrongdoing was uncovered. Aside from that, your continued claim that no "collusion" was found is also inaccurate. Not enough was found to warrant criminal charges...that's not the same as not finding any. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 3:52:23 GMT -8
People call him a patriot because he's a decorated military veteran, and he's doing his duty regardless of the personal consequences. He was wounded in service to this country yet here you are smearing his motives. You're trashing a decorated veteran to try to score a cheap political point. Well done sir.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 3:58:22 GMT -8
I must say it is interesting to watch you twist the truth until it's unrecognizable. He did nothing of the kind.
More than likely you're correct.
Thank you for admitting that the "transcript" isn't really a transcript, but a summary.
Pretty stupid isn't he. Hopefully, you're smart enough to see through the lies...but I'm not betting on it.
|
|
duke
Statesman
Posts: 681
|
Post by duke on Oct 31, 2019 6:34:45 GMT -8
The Left is pulling another of it's stunts on this one. They hide behind children to push their gun control and climate change agendas, and now they're hiding behind a war hero to push their impeachment agenda. Ignoring the original whistleblower/spy/leaker because its obvious he has a clear political agenda. Remember how Brennan put out a message for other whistleblowers to come forward. Well here he is. I expect other unelected career bureaucrats emerging shortly to take up the Leftist cause.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 8:01:02 GMT -8
Wait, what? He's a "war hero" you say? Are you sure...he speaks Russian you know...he was born where? Not in Ukraine no, in "the former Soviet Union" because that sounds worse. You guys can't even make up your mind whether to praise him or denounce him.
Really. Tell us all about him you seem to know so much. You don't know who he is or the first thing about him...if it even is a "him"...so your stupid claims are completely baseless and without merit.
Sure because you know how "leftists" are...rofl.
Seriously dude, your arguments are laughable.
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
Member is Online
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 31, 2019 8:10:54 GMT -8
...nor do I think the Mueller investigation was a waste of time. People were charged and found guilty of crimes. The investigation did not lead to "zip".
As many times as vp has used this defense of the Mueller investigation, it still cracks me up every time he trots it out. It reminds me of Captain Ahab setting out to kill Moby Dick. When he returns in failure three years later, vp and the rest of his supporters say, "Yeah, he didn't get Moby, but he did land three or four really nice albacore. So the excursion "did not lead to zip." What a hilarious deflection from the only original intent of the voyage. |
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 31, 2019 8:20:56 GMT -8
...nor do I think the Mueller investigation was a waste of time. People were charged and found guilty of crimes. The investigation did not lead to "zip".
As many times as vp has used this defense of the Mueller investigation, it still cracks me up every time he trots it out. It reminds me of Captain Ahab setting out to kill Moby Dick. When he returns in failure three years later, vp and the rest of his supporters say, "Yeah, he didn't get Moby, but he did land three or four really nice albacore. So the excursion "did not lead to zip." What a hilarious deflection from the only original intent of the voyage. Standard tactic: the ass hats of the world set out to do something stupid, completely miss the mark, but instead of actually learning from the misfire, they just change the goal. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 31, 2019 9:36:45 GMT -8
I can't imagine why. The two aren't even vaguely similar. As you point out, Captain Ahab had a singular goal. The Mueller investigation did not, despite your attempt to claim it did.
|
|
