 |
V7 - You said you wanted to be with the big boys, the smart guys that you couldn't find on the internet. You're acting like those you denigrated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Be a man and admit there is no video showing Biden bragging he fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son.
Stop evading the question by posting a lot of nonsense. It's not doing you any good.
If I'm wrong, THEN SHOW THE VIDEO!!
Talaniman: It appears that the Repubs are circling their wagons much better than the Demos.....and the Repubs are much more feisty, like they have more fire in the belly: Emotion, at least the show of it, is a powerful convincer to the general public....Trump might lose the "inning" but he is looking at the entirety of the game.
Heard that the Ukrainians may have had some sort of relationship with the Demos back in 2016 to get Trump: May be one of those "Winger" things you talk about, but did hear it.
No, if the REALLY FILTHY Erdogan NEVER stepped foot in the U.S., ever again, it would be too soon: He makes Biden and Trump, maybe even Little Kim Jung Il, even, look like saints. Don't like to see POTUS with him (not just Trump, either), any POTUS. Erdogan is not to be trusted.
Athos: Here is one of the MANY videos on YouTube showing what I have been talking about: Guy is such a pompous arse.
Attachment 49252
Vac, that's not a video. It's a pdf file.
/Once again an OP has been hijacked, you want to talk about something else, start a thread
https://www.facebook.com/nswrfs/videos/667473703780929/
V7, a VIDEO is a screen-thing with people moving. They've been doing that since (I think) Thomas Edison. Around the late 1920s they added sound so now a video had BOTH movement AND dialogue. Got it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
So a still picture of some guy with text only is NOT a video! You still with me?
Study this for a week or so, then get back to us with a VIDEO of Biden bragging about stopping the prosecutor investigating Biden's son. There'll be a quiz.
Athos: You are something else! I know its not a video: I can't upload videos from YouTube: That is the YouTube video title.....if you listen to it, Biden incriminates himself......he did a Quid Pro Quo where he strong-armed the Ukraine to fire the prosecuter to get his son off the hook. Its straight-forward.
Vac, when you find the YT video you like, then just copy the URL and paste it like this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CYQuote:
Athos: You are something else! I know its not a video: I can't upload videos from YouTube: That is the YouTube video title.....if you listen to it, Biden incriminates himself......he did a Quid Pro Quo where he strong-armed the Ukraine to fire the prosecuter to get his son off the hook. Its straight-forward.
In the video there is a clear quid pro quo involving money appropriated to Ukraine and the condition of the prosecutor being fired before it will be delivered. It certainly has elements of bribery in it. There is, however, no mention of Biden's son, so that much must be implied.
If you KNOW it's not a video, why did you say it IS a video? And why did you say there are many more videos?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
The whole world has heard that video over the last few weeks and Biden isn't incriminating himself. He's declaring out loud that he will hold money (loans) to Ukraine until they fire the prosecutor. Nowhere in the video does Biden say to stop investigating his son. Why do you say he is, when it's perfectly obvious he is NOT? Can you see all right? As I've told you, when you claim what can be easily disproven, you lose all credibility.Quote:
That is the YouTube video title.....if you listen to it, Biden incriminates himself
Yes, he most certainly did. So what? You seem to be equating Biden's quid pro quo to Trump's quid pro quo. They are TOTALLY different. Biden did it in the national interest - perfectly ok. Trump did it in his personal interest (get dirt on his political opponent) - totally not ok.Quote:
he did a Quid Pro Quo
As I wrote above, NOWHERE in the video does it say that! NOWHERE! When you say it's straight-forward, I'm sorry, V7, but I have to worry about your sanity.Quote:
he strong-armed the Ukraine to fire the prosecuter to get his son off the hook. Its straight-forward.
So it says on the video that Biden did it "in the national interest"? Strange. I didn't hear that. As to Trump, you have no idea what Trump was speaking about. Neither do the dems. If they did, we would have heard it by now. But then he's a repub, so he must surely be guilty, and Biden, a liberal dem, must surely be innocent.Quote:
Yes, he most certainly did. So what? You seem to be equating Biden's quid pro quo to Trump's quid pro quo. They are TOTALLY different. Biden did it in the national interest - perfectly ok
Athos: You are definitely a Little Adam Schiff Mini-Me: You insist that Biden didn't want the prosecutor fired to protect his son when his son WORKED FOR THE FIRM THE PROSECUTOR WAS GOING TO INVESTIGATE: Damn thing doesn't have to be verbatim to mean the same thing: YOU KNOW THE INFERENCE HERE! Out of Biden's own mouth! Hell you want to throw Trump out based off of 3rd hand information but BIDEN HAS TO SAY SOMETHING WORD FOR WORD OR IT DOESN'T COUNT? Come on, you know that is disingenuous: BIDEN IS FILTHY! The whole damn lot of them is filthy!
THIS IS WHAT YOU GET WHEN YOU SQUASH EVERY 3RD PARTY ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE "RULING ELITE" AND HAVE A MONOPOLY SETUP FOR ONLY 2 RULING PARTIES! DEMS AND REPUBS NEARLY THE SAME SMELL!
If you knew the first thing about why Biden was there insisting the prosecutor be fired, you wouldn't be saying something so egregiously dopey like "Strange, I didn't hear that". It's hard to know just how to deal with you people. Try reading a newspaper in the last month. Even easier, search the net to get brought up to date.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Good lord! Most of the planet knows what Trump said. We know it from Trump himself because TRUMP PUBLISHED WHAT HE SAID! Where have you been? In case that wasn't enough, there are 5 people from Trump's own administration who have testified that Trump was offering a bribe to the Ukraine president.Quote:
You have no idea what Trump was speaking about.
Read my lips. Your claim was that the video SHOWED Biden doing what you say. Now, having shown to be a liar, you're walking it back to say it was INFERRED! Trump however IS shown saying what he said on twitters, videos and and his impromptu press conferences. What the hell is wrong with you guys? You can't possibly be that obtuse. Or maybe you can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
No, not 3rd hand. But from the sworn testimony of FIVE members of Trump's own administration. Get real.Quote:
you want to throw Trump out based off of 3rd hand information
Once again, your unspeakably poor reading skills have failed you. I would really hope that you would learn to do better. I did not say we didn't know what Trump said, but rather that we don't know what he speaking ABOUT. In other words, you and everyone else are reading between the lines, which is precisely what you are criticizing VAC for. As for those supposed five people who have testified he tried to bribe someone (and I'd like to know those names because I don't believe you), how many were actually there and heard those words spoken? I would venture a guess that the answer is zero.Quote:
Good lord! Most of the planet knows what Trump said. We know it from Trump himself because TRUMP PUBLISHED WHAT HE SAID! Where have you been? In case that wasn't enough, there are 5 people from Trump's own administration who have testified that Trump was offering a bribe to the Ukraine president.
You know? I don't think you have been told today, so on behalf of all those you continually put down, consider yourself toldQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Athos: Doesn't matter what Schiff does or doesn't do....doesn't matter what the Demos do or don't do: THE DOW CRESTED 28,000 ON FRIDAY: COME NOV., 2020, TRUMP WILL HAVE WON HIS 2ND TERM.
It matters what Trump does. He's getting more and more frantic as the truth about his offering a bribe to Pres Z to damage his political opponent becomes common knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
If you're saying the DOW determines the election, you're wrong.
Come January 2020, I believe Trump will be on the road to prison as all those indictments catch up with him.
We patiently await those five names who have first hand knowledge that Trump was offering a bribe to the Ukraine president.
I will give you the FIRST name and that's Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, you can read the transcript of his opening statement here ahead of his public testimony this week. He heard the call first hand and acted accordingly.
Now do I need to point out the relevant first hand accounts and subsequent actions of Lt. Col. Vindman and why he took them? I await your reply after you read this account. It's pretty self apparent, and no need to fiddle around while others do your homework for you.
BENEDICT ARNOLD WAS THE GREATEST SOLDIER EVER IN OUR HISTORY AND HE WAS OUR GREATEST TRAITOR! SOB GAVE HIS LEG TO THE REVOLUTION! Vindman's metals mean nothing to support his honesty.
Like THE LITTLE RAT ON ACID, JAMES CARVILLE, SAID ABOUT BILL CLINTON: "NOBODY CARES ABOUT THIS IMPEACHMENT STUFF! ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID!" Same goes here with Trump: ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID! People are as ideaologically driven as you think, Athos: PEOPLE ARE MONEY DRIVEN! All those old, unwashed hippies from the '60's, who were little Karl Marx Mini-Me's, grew up to LOVE MONEY....AND WALLSTREET! DOW @ 28,000 MEANS EVERYTHING!
In what insane world would you question Vindman's word, and believe a lying cheating dufus? Yeah the Dow at 28,000 means a lot to the half the country with a vested interest in it, but the rest of the country...not so much.
Talaniman: All I am saying is "Look before you leap!"....What makes Vinmans's word pure as the wind driven snow? He is a known Biden supporter, to boot, so he "COULD" be prejudiced (we don't know that he is, however)…….But, we should not just take anyone's word on anything.
Bill Clinton was a convicted LIAR IN CHIEF: CONVICTED! But many people hang onto all words he spews forth...they say his lying in that instance doesn't count.....This stuff is tricky: If YOUR HORSE LIES, it might be O.K. with you....if the other guy's horse lies, ITS HORRIBLE!
It does appear that LIES are becoming more accepted in the U.S.....this has been widely accepted in the rest of the world for some time....looks like the U.S. is catching up to the rest of the world....and catching up in a way that is A NEGATIVE, NOT A POSITIVE!
Like I said before: IF TRUMP CAN BE PROVEN TO LIE, THAT HE DID THE THINGS HE IS ACCUSED OF, WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, HIS ARSE SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE!
I agree and that's the point of this whole exercise, for the House to determine if there is a case to be made to the Senate. Frankly I read the Mueller Report, and saw his testimony and his case was made in my opinion, despite popular opinion that it was not, but we'll see.
You have to admit Muller caught a lot of the dufus campaign folks dirty. Possibly more to come.
This is the only really pertinent paragraph of his testimony.
Now first of all, no one needs his testimony since the President has released the transcript of the phone call he refers to. Also note that there is not so much as a slight suggestion that a crime had been committed. No suggestion of bribery, extortion, or the famous "quid pro quo" was even hinted at.Quote:
I was concerned by the call. I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign
government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for
6
the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine. I realized that if Ukraine pursued an
investigation into the Bidens and Burisma, it would likely be interpreted as a
partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan
support it has thus far maintained. This would all undermine U.S. national security.
Following the call, I again reported my concerns to NSC’s lead counsel.
So you still need five names.
You can pull up testimonies of ALL the witnesses so far just as I did, and critique them all you want, since that's what you intend to do any way. To your critique at hand though, Vindman saw something of credible concern and reported it as is his job, and he was a first hand witness. I will also submit that the released transcript of that call was suspicious since he did reference an action that could be construed as totally inappropriate without the formal process of going through the DOJ instead, which was the case with all the witnesses.
Of course you can ignore the implications of calling on a foreign nation to investigate an American, and a possible political opponent, and calling for an investigation that implicates the opposing party, and clears Russia of interference after EVERYBODY has pegged them as behind a cyber attack to aid the dufus, even after the conviction of Roger Stone by Mueller's team drawing a direct line to those same Russian hacks through wiki leaks.
Then we have Rudy and his boys and a case is forming there too, so while we haven't yet arrived at formal charges against the dufus, a case is certainly building after one week and three witnesses, which they all have agreed there is some highly irregular and suspicious behavior going on, and quite possibly criminal. That's the whole point of the inquiry. Of course you think you can judge the outcome before we arrive at a conclusion but I suggest you hold off until Williams, Sondland, Volker, and Morrison have testified this week.
No doubt there will be a lot more to follow, and we will see who runs out of excuses first.
It just comes down to this. So far as I can tell, no one has witnessed a crime. They have some gripes, and the gripes might be legit, but there is no direct evidence of a crime. As to the Ukes investigating HB, it should be investigated. It has the smell of a conflict of interest with his dad being the VP. That might very well turn out to be the real criminal conduct in this whole mess.
Just another futile debate, evidence of something but who knows what
So where is the formal complaint from DOJ to the Ukraine government requesting such an inquiry. For that matter where is the dufus's formal request to the congress notifying them of funds being with held from Ukraine? Can you nnot see that going around the processes in place is highly suspicious, for what appears to be to give the dufus talking points for his re election campaign. Why did he have to smear the ambassador while removing her from her post as all we have is Rudy's words and actions and letters from a retired congressman who took money from Rudy's henchmen?
Of course none of that gives repubs or you, pause that something may not be right about what the dufus is doing, or how he has done it. That's okay we are going to look at it, and rightfully so.
Not a debate, but INQUIRY. Big difference. I will point out that the dufus isn't letting key first hand witnesses testify and it would seem they could clear this whole thing up with their testimony, or the dufus could testify himself as Clinton did.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
That don't look good but if he were my client I wouldn't let him answer questions under oath either.
Don't you think there is just too much interference in the conduct of government? What is the point of electing a government if all you are going to do is bicker about it and with it?
Clete we have 3 equal branches of government. Each with defined powers they get to exercise. Obviously we do more than just bicker, as anybody else you can think of that influences the whole world the way we have?
You don't like it. I get that, but there is no evidence of a crime that would warrant removing a duly elected president. A year from now is the time for you to make your move if you can with Warren, Sanders, Biden, or whoever you come up with.Quote:
For that matter where is the dufus's formal request to the congress notifying them of funds being with held from Ukraine? Can you nnot see that going around the processes in place is highly suspicious, for what appears to be to give the dufus talking points for his re election campaign. Why did he have to smear the ambassador while removing her from her post as all we have is Rudy's words and actions and letters from a retired congressman who took money from Rudy's henchmen?
Once again we basically agree. This is getting a little scary.Quote:
Clete we have 3 equal branches of government. Each with defined powers they get to exercise. Obviously we do more than just bicker, as anybody else you can think of that influences the whole world the way we have?
Wonder why the founders even bothered putting impeachment into the constitution if we could just wait for the next election? You don't need evidence to investigate, just enough circumstances for probable cause and with 13 witnesses who work for the government I would say that bar has been established. We still have that Mueller Report nobody read, and his conviction rate stemming from it.
If HC can go into an election under cloud of investigation I suppose the dufus can too. I think there was plenty of probable cause to investigate the dufus before his latest antics that led to the current inquiry. LOL, it might even turn out the dufus's head will be the only one that rolls when it's all said and done.
Obviously, in those days, there were some profoundly corrupt people, as distinct from today, of course. But the founders were well aware of the human condition as no doubt malfeasance was as prevalent as it is now. This, of course, was obvious in the case of BC, HC and I wonder what Trump will produceQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Not because you simply don't like the guy, but for "high crimes and misdemeanors."Quote:
Wonder why the founders even bothered putting impeachment into the constitution if we could just wait for the next election?
You've got nothing. Nearly every ounce of supposed testimony that has been presented would never be allowed for two seconds in a court of law. "Hearsay" and "relevance" would be the two objections, and they would be upheld even with Obama appointed judges. And bear in mind that both Trump and the Uke pres say that there was no agreement between the two of them. Even worse for the dems, the military aid was delivered and no investigation took place. So aside from a bunch of disgruntled people, as the old commercial said, "Where's the beef?"Quote:
You don't need evidence to investigate, just enough circumstances for probable cause and with 13 witnesses who work for the government I would say that bar has been established. We still have that Mueller Report nobody read, and his conviction rate stemming from it.
I asked for five names. I haven't even seen one who has testimony that has a direct bearing on these allegations.
LOL, it's a LAWFUL congressional inquiry, not a court of law for one thing, so hearsay being admissible or not is irrelevant at this stage, but not surprising you don't know that as repubs and you think it's okay for the dufus to ask a foreign government to investigate his political foes with a formal process that starts with a request by the DOJ, and not the dufus's private attorney. To date, Barr has not done so.
Wonder why? Or why Rudy holds so much sway over policy and personnel in the Ukraine and is he making money from it (Dumb question, of course he is!)?
Irrelevant only to those who are interested in political revenge rather than true justice. Same stupid thing that happened to Kavanaugh. I'm almost to the point of hoping it someday happens to all the liberal dems who stand by and applaud these unethical circuses.Quote:
so hearsay being admissible or not is irrelevant at this stage
WOW, I feel the same about you loony right wingers and you're support of a lying, cheating, bully who can do no wrong in your eyes. I think the real difference is can the dems make their case, or will they be as incompetent as repubs are. LOL, that's funny that you think we are unethical when you have a dufus you support.
What's even funnier is neither you or repubs can make an argument on the substance, but resort to partisan assumptions to deflect, distract, and dismiss facts you don't like. We may as well just go watch Australia burn.
Hamilton was the "author" of the IMPEACHMENT comments in the Federalist Papers.....Hamilton clearly stated that IMPEACHMENT has to be associated with "clear abuse of public trust".....What really made Hamilton "go mad" was trying to ensure that the IMPEACHMENT PROCESS was not abused or used as a means of the illegitimate upending an elected of a duly elected President. This is where it all gets kind of hairy because many say that the constitutional legitimacy to Impeach can easily be violated without much in the way of any cross-check of its legitimacy.
Witnesses (some first-hand) who testified that Trump offered release of military aid in return for Pres Z announcing the start of an investigation into Biden. Shortly thereafter, the whole scheme blew up with the whistleblower coming forward.
Taylor, Holmes, Williams, Vindman, Morrison, Sondland, and Trump himself by releasing the "transcript" of himself doing the bribery. These witnesses are all scheduled to be publicly questioned this coming week. Except Trump.
Others witnessing the bribe - 12 senior White House officials at the July 25 phone call. Several staffers overhearing Trump on the phone in Kiev talking to Sonderland. Second-hand witnesses: Kent, Cooper, Hill, Yovanovitch, Volker, a few others.
These are potential witnesses but have refused to testify. Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Bolton, a few others.
Trump and the Republicans initially denied there was a quid pro quo (bribe).
Then the Republicans agreed there was a quid pro quo.
But they said it wasn't impeachable.
This is the same party that impeached Clinton for lying about his private sex life, yet find bribery (specifically listed in the Constitution as impeachable) not impeachable.
I wonder what bribery in the impeachment process truely meant, and I suspect it eluded to the President profiting from his office. here there is a reverse intrepretation suggesting that the President bribed the President of the Ukraine in a manner where that person did not personally benefit and it is yet to be shown that Trump derived a personal benefit as such benefit may or may not be realised in the future, so then the whole allegation is founded in B/S
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:15 PM. |