Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

I'm not defending Trump.  I'm asking you to justify yourself.  You're presuming an investigation into corruption with regards to Burisma is a material benefit to his political campaign because of Biden's involvement with Burisma, which is predicated on an assumption that Biden will be Trump's opponent in the general election (which is the only way it could materially benefit his campaign).

 

For the sake of argument: if Warren wins the nomination, is this no longer an impeachable offense, because the material benefit to Trump's campaign would cease to exist?

 

And conversely...is the only argument against investigating corruption in the Burisma investigation Biden's involvement with Burisma and the previous investigation?  And if it is, isn't this current impeachment an exercise to materially benefit Biden's campaign?  By shielding him from investigation into his conflict of interest (which conflict of interest, I hasten to point out, was reported as a conflict of interest by everybody from 2015 until April of 2019)?

 

Point being not that Trump is innocent, or Biden is guilty...but that you - and specifically "you," as in "halfwitted buffoons just like yourself" - only judge this on your preconceived notions of the parties involved.  Which is why DR's earlier post was relevant - given multiple instances of similar actions, you only judge the right and wrong of them by your preconceived notions of the parties involved, not what actually happened.  Then claim you're not trying to have it both ways.

 

So shut the ***** up, moron.  

 

Donald Trump is a guy who constantly shows that he cares about numbers, or ratings. He cares about TV Ratings, the stock market, his approval rating, etc. All of which are routinely referenced in press conferences and on his twitter feed. He understands that numbers are something everyone can understand, and he uses them often.

 

At the time all of this began in May, Biden was the clear cut Democratic front runner. He was 10+ points ahead of any opponent in the polls, and seemed like there was a good chance he'd be Trump's opponent next year. 

 

I assume there was a reason Trump didn't go after other democratic candidates. I assume he went after Biden because someone he trusts told him Biden would likely be the candidate he'd face. Biden is the centrist candidate, and the US probably isn't ready for more radical ideas. Just because it might not materialize, doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't receive anything of value from putting this quid pro quo together. 

 

Biden's campaign is finished. At this point I think he's been guilty by association. Something bad happened in Ukraine, and anyone associated with Ukraine is probably dead in the water politically in the US. 

 

Saying I'm not objective isn't true. I've posted over the past couple years I think Clinton should have been prosecuted. There was too much smoke there to not think something major happened. A proper investigation should have happened, but Clinton's political allies didn't let that happen which is very unfortunate. 


Trump is the President of the US. He's the most powerful person on Earth. Saying I don't care about other issues is false. I do care, I just care more about cleaning up the office of the Presidency which I think has been severely damaged over the past 3 years. Things need to be cleaned up and starting with the guy at the top would go a long way in doing that. It would warn all future office holders that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. 

 

 

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

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

At the time all of this began in May, Biden was the clear cut Democratic front runner.

 

Already wrong. 

 

This began in 2017. 

 

Which you'd know if you bothered to look into any of the names and events I've already dropped. 

 

Biden's corruption DURING THE 2016 campaign has long been something Trump's demanded investigations into. 

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

12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Lenny, you are clearly a much nicer person than many Trump supporters down here but just as obvious, you wear the same orange robe.  Sorry buddy but that is as honest as can be. 

 

Second, no one has yet answered the question.  To claim it was unclear or poorly framed is just as I said, horseshit.  Enjoy your day.

The question is poorly framed. That has not changed. 

 

I had a mentor once, a person I look up to in my field, and I called to get some feedback many years  back.   I opened with all the issues I had with the company we worked with, the delays, the confusion, whatever. I then asked for some feedback on team building and some of the concerns I had with the attitude of my team. 

 

To paraphrase, he replied "With due respect, great southern rocker, I listened to what you said and have to ask you:  Have you considered how what you say and how you say it impacts your own team and the way they look at their day with you?". 

 

The interesting part about that experience was that to whatever extent I've been successful in life, my ability to read, interact and harmonize with people has been a big part of that success. I frequently encounter people with opposing views, listen respectfully and respond in kind. 

 

I'd suggest that part of your problem in this particular forum is due in part to your own limitations and bias. Heck, you even chose to make a point of contention on the factual, indisputable argument that Congress is divided on the impeachment issue.  I didn't even point out the obvious: Congress is divided over the moral and ethical question of "wrong". 

 

I guess in the end, one man's horse**** is another man's innocent quest for clarity. 

 

Seek first to understand, then to be understood. 

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

48 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

You said he heard it directly from Trump. 

 

He testified the opposite. 

 

You're wrong. 

 

Because you're an NPC who does not want to think for himself, but would rather believe what he's told by proven liars and manipulators.

 

 

He also has conveniently said that Sondlund said the quid pro quo was about both the meeting and the aid when Sonlund pretty explicitly said the quid pro quo he believed was there was about the meeting and not the aid money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...