Jump to content

Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president

 

There is. 

 

It's called the Black Ledger. 


Wait for Horowitz. 

 

And this text: 

Image result for the president wants to know everything we're doing text strzok page

 

"Potus wants to know everything we are doing" in terms of investigating Trump. 

Edited by Deranged Rhino
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc Brown said:

There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president but there is a transcript of Trump asking the Ukraine president asking him to look into a potential next president.  There's a difference there but I don't think it's an impeachable offense.  Like most things with Trump, he's done a lot of sketchy things but none of them rise to the level of being illegal.

 

High crimes and Misdemeanors has quite a broad reading

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

There's no definitive proof of Obama himself investigating a potential next president but there is a transcript of Trump asking the Ukraine president asking him to look into a potential next president.  There's a difference there but I don't think it's an impeachable offense.  Like most things with Trump, he's done a lot of sketchy things but none of them rise to the level of being illegal.

Read it again. I said the Obama Administration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

It's pathetic. Does he have a life?

 

You are responding to his tweets, so what does that say about you?

 

I guess you can't post messages (tweets. also) on a message board any more.

Edited by njbuff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gary Busey said:

 

High crimes and Misdemeanors has quite a broad reading

 

If the president is the target, I don't think that's the pertinent question.  

 

The question is:  is there enough evidence to try him in the Republican-controlled Senate, as it will be the Senate's interpretation of High Crimes that matters.  

 

The only way impeachment on Trump goes all the way forward is if there is quid pro quo, imo.  

Edited by Capco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc Brown said:

I read it.  You were comparing apples to oranges because there was no Obama transcript saying to look into Donald Trump.

Oh come on! We’re on a bigger point here. Apparently the Left believes we should give a foreign government tons of my money but never stop to ask if it’s being laundered into the pockets of politicians or their families?  Maybe I’m crazy but I’d be pissed if we weren’t asking these type of questions! Everyone should be.

  • Like (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You're right. Obama is talking to FBI agents asking them to investigate his political rival without cause (as we now know). 

 

The other is Trump talking to a foreign leader about what happened in 2016. 

 

One is WAY worse. And it's not Trump's. 

No official transcript with Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Oh come on! We’re on a bigger point here. Apparently the Left believes we should give a foreign government tons of my money but never stop to ask if it’s being laundered into the pockets of politicians or their families?  Maybe I’m crazy but I’d be pissed if we weren’t asking these type of questions! Everyone should be.

 

That's the biggest component going under-discussed here. The pay-for-play angle of foreign aid dollars. 

 

Give big dollars to a foreign country (washing it), then they turn around and give that money back to the politicians who worked on the aid packages through middle men (or in Joe's case, his son). 

 

This isn't the first time this has happened. Not even the first time Biden did something like this. How do you think Pelosi became worth 200m while making 140k a year? It wasn't through book sales.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Doc Brown said:

No official transcript with Obama.

 

... Yet. Wait for Horowitz. What we do have is the lead agent investigating Trump ADMITTING that 44 wanted to be in the loop on everything. That's pretty damning. 

 

But your argument that Obama was better at concealing it isn't very compelling in light of the two charges. We have it proven Obama's DOJ was spying on political opponents throughout much of his two terms (IRS scandal, spying on congress scandal, the spying on the media scandal -- then the DNI report listing 85% of NSA searches were without merit). 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...