[talaniman]

Your evidence for that is zero.

We disagree about that but no surprise there but maybe the truth is between our divergent opinions.

You have the real question right. You have the answer entirely wrong. As to destroying lives, I know that really doesn't bother you very much since, after all, you voted for two people responsible for the destruction of four lives in Benghazi.

The war on terror had many casualties, you are stuck on Benghazi. A sneak attack is a sneak attack like Pearl harbor and 9/11. Get over it!

[jlisenbe]

We disagree about that but no surprise there but maybe the truth is between our divergent opinions.

You can post that evidence when you are ready.

You have the real question right. You have the answer entirely wrong. As to destroying lives, I know that really doesn't bother you very much since, after all, you voted for two people responsible for the destruction of four lives in Benghazi.


The war on terror had many casualties, you are stuck on Benghazi. A sneak attack is a sneak attack like Pearl harbor and 9/11. Get over it!

It's the lying that went on afterwards, and the gross inattention that went on before, that I object to. But as I've said many times, your philosophy seems to say that if a liberal does it, then it's no problem and we must just "get over it."

[talaniman]

You can post that evidence when you are ready.

You can read the House presentation for yourself since its a matter of public record now as is my own postings of the matter, if indeed you missed it, but more likely ignored or dismissed it as you are want too in things you disagree with.

It's the lying that went on afterwards, and the gross inattention that went on before, that I object to. But as I've said many times, your philosophy seems to say that if a liberal does it, then it's no problem and we must just "get over it."

Leave it to you to conflate many things together and misrepresent them, exaggerate them, or reduce them to conservative or liberal, left or right, or up and down. Few people are as you say and fit neatly into the box you construct for them. There was no we in get over it. It wasn't intended to be a blanket statement, but a direct one to YOU and no one else, given your postings on the subjects.

[jlisenbe]

They presented nothing to prove that he did anything for personal gain. If they had, you would have posted it.

Leave it to you to completely ignore the proven wrongdoings of the Obama admin. I have no intention of "getting over" the needless deaths of four Americans and the lying that went on to conceal the responsibility. Try telling that to their families.

[talaniman]

What does it matter since you are evidence blind and time challenged anyway? You think I'm going to type a bunch of stuff for you to dismiss and mock? Take the hint, rather than repeat myself you just rant on and we wait for the next event to present itself.

[jlisenbe]

What does it matter since you are evidence blind and time challenged anyway? You think I'm going to type a bunch of stuff for you to dismiss and mock?

It's easy to be evidence blind when there is no evidence to be seen.

[Wondergirl]

It's easy to be evidence blind when there is no evidence to be seen.

Why were you watching Adult Swim instead?

[jlisenbe]

Why were you watching Adult Swim instead?

Might as well. Would see as much evidence there that Trump was engaging in personal gain in this nonsense as I would've gotten from the dems. I would see as much evidence there as I see on this board. Zero.

[talaniman]

That's so convenient to have such a disability.

[jlisenbe]

Disability? You mean the inability to provide evidence to prove guilt? Well yes, I would agree with that.

[talaniman]

One could be forgiven for not being able to see certain things, but not wanting to know is an entirely different aspects of denial.

[paraclete]

One could be forgiven for not being able to see certain things, but not wanting to know is an entirely different aspects of denial.

Ok that makes me in denial because I just don't want to know and that really doesn't matter what the argument is, too much argy, bargy

[jlisenbe]

not wanting to know

Really? You alleged that Trump did things for personal gain. I asked you (i.e. wanted to know) for evidence of that. You have come up with zero. So who is really in denial here?

BTW, if you know of any such evidence, then just list it. Your "links to nowhere" are usually not productive. Be specific. "Just listen to what Schiff said," is not an answer.

[talaniman]

Well JL, it seems that Bolton has written in his book that the dufus told Bolton the defense money depended on the Ukraine doing him that favor about those investigations. The dufus denies it. Boltons word against the dufus word. Makes a case for witnesses and documents.

[jlisenbe]

Well JL, it seems that Bolton has written in his book that the dufus told Bolton the defense money depended on the Ukraine doing him that favor about those investigations. The dufus denies it. Boltons word against the dufus word. Makes a case for witnesses and documents.

He said, she said. Even if it's true, it still does not establish the motive for what Trump asked them to do.

[talaniman]

You don't need a motive you get the sworn testimony and documents that back up the testimony to get the motive. You wanted direct first hand knowledge, you just got it. Bolton writes that the dufus wanted the hold kept on until he got his favor. QUID Pro QUO by definition. Extortion by LAW. Cover up by obstruction by with holding EVIDENCE by LAW. Got a bible? Swear Bolton in and let's get on with it.

PS

He also writes that Pompeo, and Mulvaney were in on the discussion of what the dufus was doing. Swear them in too.

[jlisenbe]

QUID Pro QUO by definition. Extortion by LAW

It would be a quid pro quo for certain, but not extortion. Governments make these arrangements all the time and a quid pro quo is not illegal in any way. It is a very common arrangement. Extortion is a silly accusation. There was no threat of force and no attempt made toward personal gain through the use of a threat of force.

[talaniman]

There doesn't have to be a threat of force, as withholding funds or military aid during a war is as effective as a threat as force is. The personal gain was dirt on his political opponent, and implicating Ukraine in the interference into the 2016 election, both actions the dufus sought was for HIS re election in 2020. That was the illegality plain and simple. Of what use would investigating the Biden's and Crowdstrike do to benefit our country?

Extortion, Bribery, both could easily apply. He got caught doing it regardless but his intent was OBVIOUS...smear his opponent and clear Vlad of wrongdoing. He should really confess and resign in shame and save the country this divisive corrupt drama.

MORE TO COME so stay tuned.

[jlisenbe]

Their war fighting capacity was not affected by the funds being withheld. They were not even aware that was the case, and both the PM and FM say there was no quid pro quo. So his intent might be obvious to you, but it was unquestionably not obvious to them.

[talaniman]

Attempting a shakedown is as illegal as carry it out and succeeding. Doesn't matter if the Ukrainians knew it or not. Whether they suffered from the delay and lack of support is irrelevant also to the attempted shakedown. If they had then it would have just looked a lot worse in everyone's eyes though.

Saying there is no quid pro quo is NOTHING unless proven, and in this case it was not only admitted publicly by Mulvaney, but established by the dufus, assistance for investigations. I've already laid out the illegalities of the dufus's actions, personal gain to cheat during the 2020 election through a foreign government.

He is entitled a defense, and a FAIR trial which must include witnesses and documents.