SoCal Deek Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: 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. Thanks The Washington swamp is deep and wide. And they really, really don’t like Donald Trump sticking a flashlight down into it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: ... Yet. Wait for Horowitz. Wait for the IG (when it matters politically) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capco Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Depends if they ever see the full Whistleblower Report. That's the wildcard right now. But you can already see both sides prepping their arguments in case the report doesn't go in their favor. Either way, it will be interesting to know more if/when that comes out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, DC Tom said: So you're not just an adjunct law professor, but you're a bad one... Any alleged statement by the president, even if it’s heard second hand, is explicitly not hearsay in any proceeding against him..... (assuming evidentiary rules even apply, I have no idea if they do or don’t...doesn’t matter for this issue since it’s not hearsay) so yea, not hearsay dumbass Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Capco said: That's the wildcard right now. But you can already see both sides prepping their arguments in case the report doesn't go in their favor. Either way, it will be interesting to know more if/when that comes out. They just announced the Congress and Senate intel will get the report in full at 4pm. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said: Whistle blower Andre Bakaj. Compass Rose law group, formerly interned for Clinton and Schumer. Yep, no bias whatsoever. I believe Andre Bakaj is an attorney for the rumor monger not the rumor monger himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 I'm still curious why the ICIG has authority over the President's foreign policy phone calls... 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyBatty is alive Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, 3rdnlng said: I believe Andre Bakaj is an attorney for the rumor monger not the rumor monger himself. You are correct, my error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, Capco said: That's the wildcard right now. But you can already see both sides prepping their arguments in case the report doesn't go in their favor. Either way, it will be interesting to know more if/when that comes out. Indeed - and if it never comes out those in favor of impeachment have the upper hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, Crayola64 said: And it’s so pathetic people think whistleblowers can only be credible if they have direct knowledge of something. I dont expect much from some of you though (“durrrrrr they didn’t even here da call”) How can they be credible without direct knowledge if no evidence can be provided? I get your premise- If I work at company x and they're doing some shady stuff and I've heard it through the grape vine, I might not have first hand knowledge about it, but I go report it to SEC or whoever. That's gonna drive an investigation. But if the investigation produces jackshit, I am no longer credible. I have been proven to be a false witness, or at least to have misunderstood what I thought I know. That's what (seemingly so far at least) is happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Color me ignorant, but isn't the POTUS supposed to talk with other world leaders, even in private, even if your name is Donald Trump? And just for the record, didn't another certain President say he would have more flexibility after the election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: I'm still curious why the ICIG has authority over the President's foreign policy phone calls... What law gives him that authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 22 minutes ago, Capco said: All I'm saying is that Zelensky's comment doesn't exonerate the president. I haven't decided either way yet. I'm still in wait and see mode on this whole topic for now. This is correct- they don't exonerate him, but he doesn't need exoneration because, as of yet, there is no evidence that he did anything. The only thing behind this is the WB report that has been contradicted by the transcript, so until we see more, Trump is innocent. That being said, Zelensky's comments don't end the conversation, but they definitely give credence to Trump's side of the story while doing harm to the WB's side- we'll see what happens. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 Biden can be investigated until the cows come home. Is anything really going to happen to him? He has a (D) at the end of his name, or beginning. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numark3 Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, whatdrought said: How can they be credible without direct knowledge if no evidence can be provided? I get your premise- If I work at company x and they're doing some shady stuff and I've heard it through the grape vine, I might not have first hand knowledge about it, but I go report it to SEC or whoever. That's gonna drive an investigation. But if the investigation produces jackshit, I am no longer credible. I have been proven to be a false witness, or at least to have misunderstood what I thought I know. That's what (seemingly so far at least) is happening here. It’s not even a premise. There are countless whistleblowers without direct knowledge that have been proven right. Just saying someone doesn’t have direct knowledge and therefore they are a rumor mongerer is just a stupid statement. That’s my point. as for here, you kinda need the whistleblower report to see what the allegations are before you can see if they conflict with other evidence... (do we know what the report is, or just what the media reported on it...and noting they consistently get facts wrong) Edited September 25, 2019 by Crayola64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, whatdrought said: This is correct- they don't exonerate him, but he doesn't need exoneration because, as of yet, there is no evidence that he did anything. The only thing behind this is the WB report that has been contradicted by the transcript, so until we see more, Trump is innocent. That being said, Zelensky's comments don't end the conversation, but they definitely give credence to Trump's side of the story while doing harm to the WB's side- we'll see what happens. How dare you EVER say Trump is innocent? Don't you know when you say that a Demonrats head explodes upon every mention of Trump being innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted September 25, 2019 Share Posted September 25, 2019 1 minute ago, Crayola64 said: That’s my point. No, your point is to continue to prove to everyone reading that you'll opine on a subject you admit you haven't put the time or effort in to understand. Trolling right along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts