Jump to content

Whistleblower Has Been Backed Up By Multiple Witnesses


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What foreign aid was held back because of that? 

 

You guys...

 

None, just like with Trump and the Ukraine

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:
 

 

Fool me once, shame on you. 

Fool me twice... you don't fool me twice. 

 

Trump comes out stronger every time, why do they continue doing these things?

 

It's as if they want him re elected.

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

15 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

None, just like with Trump and the Ukraine

 

Trump comes out stronger every time, why do they continue doing these things?

 

It's as if they want him re elected.

Oh ya, Trump was extorting a foreign leader. You must be blind or willfully ignorant not to see it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Oh ya, Trump was extorting a foreign leader. You must be blind or willfully ignorant not to see it. 

 

Ok, is this as straight forward as the Russia collusion?  Piles of evidence, lot's of witnesses, slam dunk case.

 

:lol::lol:

 

:nana:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Crayola64 said:


prove a negative?  You said I said something, I said find it then.  You lied and got caught.  Own it for once 

 

Uh... you're REAL bad at this. @3rdnlng did not lie, he told the truth. As anyone who was unfortunate enough to be in this thread last week knows. 

 

I know you're a fancy, rich lawyer, but you do also realize that the internet saves what you type, right? So, in matters like this it's REAL easy to see who's right and wrong. And guess what, 3rd was right, and you were wrong. Or is it better put that you're a liar? 

 

Here's just a snippet of you bragging about your job, salary, and how you make more money than all of us combined.

 

 

On 9/23/2019 at 9:36 AM, Crayola64 said:

Except for some fields like mine, where you work in your career making a lot of money, and you adjunct at top universities for a class or two to be involved in the community.  I teach writing in my field, because I’m recognized and paid for being a great writer

 

On 9/23/2019 at 9:42 AM, Crayola64 said:

(I don’t feel bad that I’m wildly more successful than you or that I’m a better writer.  That’s just being fair)

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:15 PM, Crayola64 said:

I teach law students at a top 20 university, but okay.

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:21 PM, Crayola64 said:

And sorry, bragging about being a successful lawyer is obnoxious.  My apologies

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:42 PM, Crayola64 said:

You are right, no objective evidence I am a successful  teacher.  Lot's of objective evidence I am a successful lawyer though, so that is nice.  

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:54 PM, Crayola64 said:

Well, considering I usually win....probably not terrible.  

 

On 9/23/2019 at 1:57 PM, Crayola64 said:

I only do high stakes civil law.  

 

On 9/23/2019 at 2:19 PM, Crayola64 said:

Oh no, I am a professional writer.  No doubt about that.  That is why I get paid wayyyyyyyy more than you all combined to write for a living. 

 

On 9/23/2019 at 2:22 PM, Crayola64 said:

It is all too true!  It is annoying how much money good lawyers make.

 

On 9/23/2019 at 2:40 PM, Crayola64 said:

 

The popular, successful, RICH, problem solver with great results? 

 

 

Don't you have a hat to put on and a job to go to?  

 

 

To recap: 

 

Crayola writes (lots) about how rich and successful he is compared to everyone else -- then a week later lies about doing so. 

Crayola KNOWS there isn't anything to the idea of a coup -- despite admitting he refuses to read anything which challenges his world view. 

 

T

R

O

L

L

 

And a poor one at that. Bye, asshat! 

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Crayola64 said:

Got it, so I didn’t say I drive a fancy car or that I’m a big time lawyer.  Thanks DR.  
 

now go play with twitter

 

No one cares.

 

47 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Uh... you're REAL bad at this. @3rdnlng did not lie, he told the truth. As anyone who was unfortunate enough to be in this thread last week knows. 

 

I know you're a fancy, rich lawyer, but you do also realize that the internet saves what you type, right? So, in matters like this it's REAL easy to see who's right and wrong. And guess what, 3rd was right, and you were wrong. Or is it better put that you're a liar? 

 

Here's just a snippet of you bragging about your job, salary, and how you make more money than all of us combined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To recap: 

 

Crayola writes (lots) about how rich and successful he is compared to everyone else -- then a week later lies about doing so. 

Crayola KNOWS there isn't anything to the idea of a coup -- despite admitting he refuses to read anything which challenges his world view. 

 

T

R

O

L

L

 

And a poor one at that. Bye, asshat! 

 

Seriously, no one cares.

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

49 minutes ago, Gary M said:

 

Ok, is this as straight forward as the Russia collusion?  Piles of evidence, lot's of witnesses, slam dunk case.

 

:lol::lol:

 

:nana:

Lol! Presidents own words! “I need a favor” 

 

You guy already pining for the good old days of Trump getting away with subverting the republic. Poor dears :)

1 hour ago, Chef Jim said:

 

They wanted to know if you were coming from a well informed position or a position based public or MSM opinion.   So instead of answering their simple yes or no question you evaded and as an good lawyer knows evading a question typically looks bad.  Sooooo good job looking bad.  

What are you talking about? This post really shows how incredibly ignorant you are. What sources do you get your info from? 

 

John has quoted info from the sources. The only two that matter 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Lol! Presidents own words! “I need a favor” 

 

You guy already pining for the good old days of Trump getting away with subverting the republic. Poor dears :)

I need a favor regarding 2016 election and Crowdstrike.

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

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

And now you've identified why your position is intellectually dishonest and problematic. 

 

Will your rectify it? Or continue to believe the media is your friend and their "experts" should be trusted without push back? 

 

 

Extortion is not the crime he's closest to on the call you nitwit, which is why you bringing up extortion from Warren-Sanders field is about the norm for your level of lahjik. 

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Crayola =

J

O

K

E

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

anything which challenges his world view. 

 

T

R

O

L

L

 

Writing things out vertically could be a new one.

 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

refuses to read

 

DRINK!

 

Quote

asshat! 

 

DRINK!

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Uh... you're REAL bad at this.

 

DRINK!

 

(with adverbial amplifier...1/2 extra)

Edited by John Adams
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, John Adams said:

 

Extortion is not the crime he's closest to on the call you nitwit, which is why you bringing up extortion from Warren-Sanders field is about the norm for your level of lahjik. 

 

You've said repeatedly, for days now without any evidence to support it, that money was withheld because Trump was clearly leaning on the president of Ukraine. 

(This never happened, there's still no evidence to support it -- and despite waiting for you to provide it, you've run from said challenge for almost a week).

 

In the same breath you've also said, from the beginning, that the call wasn't impeachable. Which it isn't. 

 

But extortion is impeachable... and you claim that's what happened with the money without providing evidence. 

 

See why you're confused? You speak out of both sides of your mouth because you, by your own admission, trust the words of experts over yourself or evidence that runs counter to their words. That's how you boxed yourself into this position. There wasn't money withheld for the purpose of pressuring the Ukraine to find dirt on Joe. That story doesn't have anything to support it but the spin of the media who's proven to be liars and IC officials who have proven the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

I need a favor regarding 2016 election and Crowdstrike.

 

Your thinking: So the Biden ask wasn't a favor. It was an, umm, another "thing" he wanted. After talking about aid. Now Crowdstrike was a favor. And Bidens was not a favor. But an ask.

 

And this distinction matters because...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still spinning something which is plain as day. 500 words between statements. 500+. 

 

The first thing brought up after favor was 2016. There's nothing wrong or improper about that. Zip. He never asked to dig up dirt on Joe. He asked the president to look into the corruption charges which are open source and ongoing in BOTH countries. Again, nothing wrong with that... 

 

...Unless you apply the spin, which requires inventing facts (like the money being withheld, or like Schiff making up the entire statement). 

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

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You've said repeatedly, for days now without any evidence to support it, that money was withheld because Trump was clearly leaning on the president of Ukraine. 

(This never happened, there's still no evidence to support it -- and despite waiting for you to provide it, you've run from said challenge for almost a week).

 

In the same breath you've also said, from the beginning, that the call wasn't impeachable. Which it isn't. 

 

But extortion is impeachable... and you claim that's what happened with the money without providing evidence. 

 

See why you're confused? You speak out of both sides of your mouth because you, by your own admission, trust the words of experts over yourself or evidence that runs counter to their words. That's how you boxed yourself into this position. There wasn't money withheld for the purpose of pressuring the Ukraine to find dirt on Joe. That story doesn't have anything to support it but the spin of the media who's proven to be liars and IC officials who have proven the same. 

 

Nincompoop brain, he withheld the aid. And he used the aid on the call as leverage. That's all circumstantially relevant to the next sentence I will type. N'est pa?

 

Then he asked for (let's use "solicited," shall we, since you're too dense to use it and brought up extortion) election help (let's call it an "in kind" contribution perhaps) from a foreign leader to investigate his leading political rival. 

 

Jesus, even some of Trump's biggest supporters think the call looks bad. But not you bud. You're tossing Trump's salad (which let's admit this at least, isn't nice based on his "diet").  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

He never asked to dig up dirt on Joe.

 

Did he have a list of people he named? Or did he only name one of them? 

 

Please show your work. 

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Prove it. 

 

Should be easy. 

 

You keep saying it happened. 

 

Do you not believe the aid was withheld until Congress beat his ass about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

What are you talking about? This post really shows how incredibly ignorant you are. What sources do you get your info from? 

 

John has quoted info from the sources. The only two that matter 

 

I quote from the bible. Does that mean I've read it?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

Received by the committee.  Schiff can easily say he received them personally, thus they weren't made available to members of the committee, and be correct under the letter of the law.

  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 


zzzzzz

 

Schiff is a tool and this was a tool moment. Give him his spanking and move on. 

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

"All 17 intelligence agencies agreed with the ICA! The media told me so!"

 

Prove that aid was withheld. Show me the evidence. 


Do you want me to quote the president himself? Again? He says he withheld the aid. And he released it only when Congress got up his ass about it. 

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, vertical text is not one of his usual tropes.

 

You're really bad at this "You're really bad at this" drinking game.


Vertical text is one to watch. 
 

I do respect his Emmy nomination but my guess is that it’s not in a “best original” category. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, John Adams said:


Do you want me to quote the president himself? Again? He says he withheld the aid. And he released it only when Congress got up his ass about it. 

 

 

It amazes me how people who insist Trump is a liar and you can't trust anything he says will turn around and take the blandest statements of his as gospel when it's convenient. 

 

Trump does not exist in any sort of reality as normal people would define it.  You can't trust anything he says.

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

1 hour ago, John Adams said:

 

Your thinking: So the Biden ask wasn't a favor. It was an, umm, another "thing" he wanted. After talking about aid. Now Crowdstrike was a favor. And Bidens was not a favor. But an ask.

 

And this distinction matters because...?

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the whole transcript. Go read it and then see what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't read the whole transcript. Go read it and then see what you think.

Exactly! Martha MacCallum just asked the Assistant Press Secretary why Trump asked the Ukrainian President to work with Rudy Giuliani on the Biden question. The problem is HE DIDN’T! Trump asked him to work with the Attorney General on that issue. Talk about lazy reporting. Doesn’t anyone actually read anything anymore? Come on Fox! Not you too? Drain the swamp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

President Adams

 

The Congress appropriates funds for everything in the federal budget. The Administration is the one that decides how and when those funds are dispersed.  

 

Not quite.  Appropriations is done line-item by line-item. and the executive can't generally move money around between them (aside from a few specifically legislated cases).  

 

For example, from the 2019 NIH appropriation:

Quote

For necessary expenses for Departmental Management, including the hire of three passenger motor vehicles, $337,756,000, together with not to exceed $308,000, which may be expended from the Employment Security Administration account in the Unemployment Trust Fund: Provided, That $59,825,000 for the Bureau of International Labor Affairs shall be available for obligation through December 31, 2019: Provided further, That funds available to the Bureau of International Labor Affairs may be used to administer or operate international labor activities, bilateral and multilateral technical assistance, and microfinance programs, by or through contracts, grants, subgrants and other arrangements: Provided further, That not more than $53,825,000 shall be for programs to combat exploitative child labor internationally and not less than $6,000,000 shall be used to implement model programs that address worker rights issues through technical assistance in countries with which the United States has free trade agreements or trade preference programs: Provided further, That $8,040,000 shall be used for program evaluation and shall be available for obligation through September 30, 2020: Provided further, That funds available for program evaluation may be used to administer grants for the purpose of evaluation: Provided further, That grants made for the purpose of evaluation shall be awarded through fair and open competition: Provided further, That funds available for program evaluation may be transferred to any other appropriate account in the Department for such purpose: Provided further, That the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate are notified at least 15 days in advance of any transfer: Provided further, That the funds available to the Women's Bureau may be used for grants to serve and promote the interests of women in the workforce: Provided further, That of the amounts made available to the Women’s Bureau, not less than $994,000 shall be used for grants authorized by the Women in Apprenticeship and Nontraditional Occupations Act.

 

And NIH alone has 150 pages of this *****.  Within the constraints of that federal law, the White House has complete "freedom" to disperse as they see fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

President Adams

 

The Congress appropriates funds for everything in the federal budget. The Administration is the one that decides how and when those funds are dispersed.  

 

So you're saying the president can withhold funds.

 

In this case, he only released the funds when Congress, including a lot of Rs, got up in his business about it. 

 

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

It amazes me how people who insist Trump is a liar and you can't trust anything he says will turn around and take the blandest statements of his as gospel when it's convenient. 

 

Trump does not exist in any sort of reality as normal people would define it.  You can't trust anything he says.

 

 

This is hard to counter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...