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

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

All people, even the most independent thinking people should agree on the truth.  My point is that Trump's defenders don't even know the truth, nor do they seem to care. 

 

PROJECTION. 

 

Quick, Bob: Do you think Trump colluded with Russia? (prank: you already admitted you do - despite this being DISPROVEN thrice over). 

 

So, when you say you care about knowing the truth, why are you lying to the board? You clearly DON'T care about truth unless that truth confirms what you've been told to believe by proven liars and manipulators. 

 

This is the logical rut you dig for yourself when you refuse to think for yourself and instead double down on the narrative created whole cloth from fiction by proven liars and manipulators. 

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, the Sabres played Calgary last night.  While there may be different takes on various facets of the game, no one is giving a score other than 4-3.  There is an actual truth.  4-3 Calgary win.  Do you know the actual truth with Trump's Ukraine interaction? 

 

All people, even the most independent thinking people should agree on the truth.  My point is that Trump's defenders don't even know the truth, nor do they seem to care.  If you are concerned with the truth and not just a defensible position, not knowing the truth while continuing to defend him should grate on your conscience imo.

Yes, it was a game that was not as close as the score.

 

From everything I see Trump is not guilty of any reasonable impeachment crimes. If that changes I will take another look at it. With that said, thanks for not putting me on "ignore" and completely inundating me with your schitt. 

[Hedge]

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Yes, it was a game that was not as close as the score.

 

From everything I see Trump is not guilty of any reasonable impeachment crimes. If that changes I will take another look at it. With that said, thanks for not putting me on "ignore" and completely inundating me with your schitt. 

 

Well, you quoted me first in this interaction and responded to my questions but I guess you are welcome for leaving you off ignore up until now.  Unlike some posters here, after a post or two gets ignored I deduce that that particular person doesn't wish to converse with me but if they reply I deduce that they do wish to converse.  I can put you on ignore if you like.

 

I seriously doubt that you could change positions with respect to Trump.  As mentioned, Trump supporters immediately vilify and discount any one that criticizes Trump.  They then can justify ignoring that negative information as fake news.  I am not sure most even realize that they are doing that. 

 

How can your view turn negative if you are immediately rejecting negative information?   Don't spend all night on that one.  It can't.

 

 

 

[dubs]

38 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Look, the Sabres played Calgary last night.  While there may be different takes on various facets of the game, no one is giving a score other than 4-3.  There is an actual truth.  4-3 Calgary win.  Do you know the actual truth with Trump's Ukraine interaction? 

 

All people, even the most independent thinking people should agree on the truth.  My point is that Trump's defenders don't even know the truth, nor do they seem to care.  If you are concerned with the truth and not just a defensible position, not knowing the truth while continuing to defend him should grate on your conscience imo.

wait, aren’t the changing stories on the dem side, partly driven by focus group tested crimes. 
 

first it was quid pro quo

then it was bribery

then it was extortion

then it was irregularities in foreign policy

then it was what trump names his youngest son

 

The trump story has always been, “no quid pro quo, nothing inappropriate, perfect call”

 

 

[row_33]

now Bob is yammering on about a hockey game that never happened?

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

now Bob is yammering on about a hockey game that never happened?

 

 

It's amusing to watch him flounder. 

 

[Bob in Mich]

2 minutes ago, dubs said:

wait, aren’t the changing stories on the dem side, partly driven by focus group tested crimes. 
 

first it was quid pro quo

then it was bribery

then it was extortion

then it was irregularities in foreign policy

then it was what trump names his youngest son

 

The trump story has always been, “no quid pro quo, nothing inappropriate, perfect call”

 

 

 

There may be discussion on the Dem side on what to charge and what to call Trump's actions but there is pretty good agreement on what happened.  Trump tried to use the leverage of the pre-appropriated aid to get himself personal favors.  Not just any favors though, favors that would improve his chances in the next election, aka election aid from a foreign government. 

 

Trump himself has clung to a position that everything was perfect, that is true.  His supporters however, knowing his penchant for lying, have settled into  many different positions.  On the Trump defender side, there are about 8 different positions.  7 of those 8 are not really true.  But hey, the economy is good and the Saudis will probably help to elect the same guy you wanted anyway

[Foxx]

a rare moment of clarity from the propagandists.

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1203011598329270272

 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Bob in Mich said:

 

There may be discussion on the Dem side on what to charge and what to call Trump's actions but there is pretty good agreement on what happened. 

 

They can't prove intent, they can only speculate about the intent. Thus, there is NO AGREEMENT on what happened for either side. 

 

You're being lied to. And not thinking for yourself. That's why you're so ***** lost. 

 

1 minute ago, Bob in Mich said:

Trump tried to use the leverage of the pre-appropriated aid to get himself personal favors.  Not just any favors though, favors that would improve his chances in the next election, aka election aid from a foreign government. 

 

That's untrue, unproven, and pure partisan spin. 

 

Trump spent three years talking about corruption in other countries, especially countries which we give foreign aid to. It's long established. There's an existing treaty with the Ukraine and the US which allows/demands he ask for precisely this kind of action when there's reason to -- and there was more than ample reason to investigate corruption in both the 2016 election and beyond, specifically around Joe Biden, with or without a pending election. 

 

You're spouting presumptions as fact and not admitting there's a difference. Why is that? 

 

3 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

Trump himself has clung to a position that everything was perfect, that is true.  His supporters however, knowing his penchant for lying, have settled into  many different positions.  On the Trump defender side, there are about 8 different positions.  7 of those 8 are not really true.  But hey, the economy is good and the Saudis will probably help to elect the same guy you wanted anyway

 

Hot. 

Nonsense. 

 

But you've just proven, again, that you're not seriously interested in truth. You're regurgitating the talking points of people who are proven liars. And you're doing so without hesitation because you are either a dishonest person, or ignorant. 

 

(it's both)

[dubs]

6 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

There may be discussion on the Dem side on what to charge and what to call Trump's actions but there is pretty good agreement on what happened.  Trump tried to use the leverage of the pre-appropriated aid to get himself personal favors.  Not just any favors though, favors that would improve his chances in the next election, aka election aid from a foreign government. 

 

Trump himself has clung to a position that everything was perfect, that is true.  His supporters however, knowing his penchant for lying, have settled into  many different positions.  On the Trump defender side, there are about 8 different positions.  7 of those 8 are not really true.  But hey, the economy is good and the Saudis will probably help to elect the same guy you wanted anyway

I wouldn’t call them trump defenders, but rather impeachment opponents. Let’s start there. 
 

opponents to impeachment have been pretty consistent. 
 

1) there is enough reason to warrant an investigation into the Biden’s - obviously. 

2) the DNC server was the centerpiece of the Russian collusion narrative, and there’s a possibility that the server, which was never investigated by the FBI, is in the Ukraine. If so, we should get out hands on it and run our own investigation

3) these actions are perfectly permissible and actually expected by the president  Reverse the letters at the end of all the names and we’d all say the same thing. 
 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, dubs said:

I wouldn’t call them trump defenders, but rather impeachment opponents. Let’s start there. 
 

opponents to impeachment have been pretty consistent. 
 

1) there is enough reason to warrant an investigation into the Biden’s - obviously. 

2) the DNC server was the centerpiece of the Russian collusion narrative, and there’s a possibility that the server, which was never investigated by the FBI, is in the Ukraine. If so, we should get out hands on it and run our own investigation

3) these actions are perfectly permissible and actually expected by the president  Reverse the letters at the end of all the names and we’d all say the same thing. 
 

 

I'd even add the server is a distraction (for now). Even without it, there's more than enough evidence in OS of Obama/DNC operatives working with the Ukraine to subvert the 2016 election. Paul Manafort is literally in jail right now in part because of this operation (The Black Ledger). There's court transcripts and audio recordings of officials in the Ukraine admitting to the US/Ukraine involvement in the 2016 election. 

 

There's MORE than enough there to justify a peek. 

 

And the dems know it. That's why they dishonestly frame the opposition's position as saying that ONLY the Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, not Russia. That's FALSE, and blatant straw man argument which has been allowed to metastasize in people's minds. The reality is BOTH countries did. 

 

More reason / justification to look into the Ukraine and Biden in 2016. 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[3rdnlng]

35 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

Well, you quoted me first in this interaction and responded to my questions but I guess you are welcome for leaving you off ignore up until now.  Unlike some posters here, after a post or two gets ignored I deduce that that particular person doesn't wish to converse with me but if they reply I deduce that they do wish to converse.  I can put you on ignore if you like.

 

I seriously doubt that you could change positions with respect to Trump.  As mentioned, Trump supporters immediately vilify and discount any one that criticizes Trump.  They then can justify ignoring that negative information as fake news.  I am not sure most even realize that they are doing that. 

 

How can your view turn negative if you are immediately rejecting negative information?   Don't spend all night on that one.  It can't.

 

 

 

Please don't put me on ignore and hound me like you do DC Tom & DR. 

 

Let me cut to the chase. Because I don't agree with you I'm just immediately rejecting negative information about Trump? I'm sure I've spent  lot more time on this subject than you have. I haven't taken any immediate opinion but I am skeptical when it comes to people who have been lying to the country for years. In other words I think for myself and you want Nancy Pelosi to do my thinking for me. 

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

Does it bother you that the truth does not come into play when defending Trump?

 

Whose "truth"? The "truth" given by Democrats that boils down to speculation, assumptions, and innuendo? What about the reality of what was actually said by Trump?

 

Not one person the Democrats have produced can point to an actual provable fact and say Trump "extorted" anything. Not one person can point to an actual provable fact and say Trump "bribed" anyone. Not one person can point to an actual provable fact to say Trump "misused the office for political gain". Not one. Hell, even Ukraine says they were never pressured, and did not even know the aid was being withheld.

 

The feelings and speculation that form the core of the Democrats' "evidence" are nothing more than meaningless nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

As always:  Ignoring serial insulters DR and DCTom

 

Oh c'mon, we know you can't quit DR.

42 minutes ago, Foxx said:

a rare moment of clarity from the propagandists.

https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1203011598329270272

 

 

I start to wonder if we'll see more of this, considering that CNN's ratings are in the schiffter.

[RochesterRob]

44 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

They can't prove intent, they can only speculate about the intent. Thus, there is NO AGREEMENT on what happened for either side. 

 

You're being lied to. And not thinking for yourself. That's why you're so ***** lost. 

 

 

That's untrue, unproven, and pure partisan spin. 

 

Trump spent three years talking about corruption in other countries, especially countries which we give foreign aid to. It's long established. There's an existing treaty with the Ukraine and the US which allows/demands he ask for precisely this kind of action when there's reason to -- and there was more than ample reason to investigate corruption in both the 2016 election and beyond, specifically around Joe Biden, with or without a pending election. 

 

You're spouting presumptions as fact and not admitting there's a difference. Why is that? 

 

 

Hot. 

Nonsense. 

 

But you've just proven, again, that you're not seriously interested in truth. You're regurgitating the talking points of people who are proven liars. And you're doing so without hesitation because you are either a dishonest person, or ignorant. 

 

(it's both)

  Bob must have a new super strain of MJ that he is smoking this afternoon.  He is not only heading out of orbit but into deep space.

[Deranged Rhino]

This is real bad news for the narrative engineers. 

 

 

When/if this gets to the senate, there will be new rules. And it'll all come out. Slowly. Painfully. Draining the resources of the DNC who will have to fight this while trying to salvage the campaigns of their lead candidates who will be swept up in it. 

 

Checkmate was reached long ago. But it's almost public now.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It's amusing to watch him flounder. 

 

 

...never understood why some flaunt their ignorance rather than trying like hell to hide it..................

[Bob in Mich]

47 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Whose "truth"? The "truth" given by Democrats that boils down to speculation, assumptions, and innuendo? What about the reality of what was actually said by Trump?

 

Not one person the Democrats have produced can point to an actual provable fact and say Trump "extorted" anything. Not one person can point to an actual provable fact and say Trump "bribed" anyone. Not one person can point to an actual provable fact to say Trump "misused the office for political gain". Not one. Hell, even Ukraine says they were never pressured, and did not even know the aid was being withheld.

 

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Ask yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot, would 17 witnesses speaking under oath against Obama been enough to prove anything to you.  And please stop with Zelensky said he felt no pressure.  We both know he had no choice

 

So which of the 7 or 8 defensible positions are you taking?  And, is THE truth more important to you or would it be better for the Repubs to find a good defensible position regardless of the truth?

[DC Tom]

15 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Ask yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot, would 17 witnesses speaking under oath against Obama been enough to prove anything to you.  And please stop with Zelensky said he felt no pressure.  We both know he had no choice

 

So which of the 7 or 8 defensible positions are you taking?  And, is THE truth more important to you or would it be better for the Repubs to find a good defensible position regardless of the truth?

 

If 17 witnesses against Obama came out and said "I have no first-hand knowledge of wrong-doing, I just don't agree with him," you bet your misspent stoner life they wouldn't prove anything to me.

 

Neither does arguing that Zelensky was coerced into denying coercion.  That's batshit insane beghing the question.

[IDBillzFan]

8 hours ago, John Adams said:

 

You're not part of that "we" Kemosabe. 

 

And if the "we" ever rid PPP of asswipes, the entire board would be gone. 

 

I don't now about 'we,' but you know what I would like? 

 

I would like people who post on this board to stick to one username. Just pick one and stick with it.

[Koko78]

24 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Ask yourself, if the shoe was on the other foot, would 17 witnesses speaking under oath against Obama been enough to prove anything to you.  And please stop with Zelensky said he felt no pressure.  We both know he had no choice

 

So which of the 7 or 8 defensible positions are you taking?  And, is THE truth more important to you or would it be better for the Repubs to find a good defensible position regardless of the truth?

 

As Tom said, if 17 witnesses came forward about Obama say they have no actual knowledge of wrongdoing, just that they disagree with him (and therefore, he must be doing wrong), you better bet your ass I'd laugh at them just as hard as I'm laughing at the Democrats.

 

As for Zelensky, that is speculative bullschiff based on 'feelz'.

 

I'm interested in provable facts, not some idiots testifying about the interpretations of how they feel about things they heard third-hand.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Koko78

[row_33]

1 hour ago, RochesterRob said:

  Bob must have a new super strain of MJ that he is smoking this afternoon.  He is not only heading out of orbit but into deep space.

 

[Albwan]

2 hours ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

There may be discussion on the Dem side on what to charge and what to call Trump's actions but there is pretty good agreement on what happened.  Trump tried to use the leverage of the pre-appropriated aid to get himself personal favors.  Not just any favors though, favors that would improve his chances in the next election, aka election aid from a foreign government. 

 

Trump himself has clung to a position that everything was perfect, that is true.  His supporters however, knowing his penchant for lying, have settled into  many different positions.  On the Trump defender side, there are about 8 different positions.  7 of those 8 are not really true.  But hey, the economy is good and the Saudis will probably help to elect the same guy you wanted anyway

Funny how morons try to speak for others... piss off

[Buffalo_Gal]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

If this is true...  

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 









 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If this is true...  

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 

 

She gets to claim the abuses discovered by Horowitz/Durham/Barr are politically motivated retribution for her "upholding the constitution" when it comes to impeachment. 

1 hour ago, Bob in Mich said:

 

THE truth, you know, the one that used to matter.   Try to think back a few years.

 

Back a few years when the same sources you're citing as "proving" the matter in regards to the Ukraine were SWEARING to you that Trump was a Russian asset who colluded with Putin to steal the election? You mean THAT truth? The one that was pushed, breathlessly (by you and others) for three years despite there being not one drop of truth to the core allegations. Not one? 

 

And since it's been proven, thrice over, that it was entirely fiction -- have you admitted you were had or duped or wrong? 

 

Nope. 

You STILL believe it. 

 

So spare me your reverence for truth. You care not for it. You're a propragandized person who thinks presumption = fact. A useless idiot is what you are. You're not a truth warrior. You've done everything in your power to DENY reality to yourself. 

 

Save that sanctimonious ***** for when you're talking to yourself in the mirror. That's the only audience who'd believe a word of it. 

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1203053221880745984

 

pencil neck has a problem.

 

[Buffalo_Gal]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

She gets to claim the abuses discovered by Horowitz/Durham/Barr are politically motivated retribution for her "upholding the constitution" when it comes to impeachment. 

Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

 

She makes her money by kicking gov't contracts to her familys' businesses. One such example:

 

And (likely) selling out to China and the Mexican PRI like the rest of the CA dems. 

[Foxx]

13 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

If this is true...  

I wrote yesterday it may come down to Nancy saying, "Well, we tried,"  when those 30+ do not vote for impeachment.  If they are not whipping votes either they know they do have them, or they know they will never have them, or the DNC is too broke to offer cash and since Trump stopped the payola, what else is there to switch a vote from no to yes for? 

I'm kinda baffled by this whole thing.  Trump's approval numbers are now over 50%, the RNC is raising  money like never before (while the DNC is broke), black voters are siding with President Trump (supposedly)... what is the endgame? Nancy is going to be 80 years old. Even if this endeavor is to rid the party of the AOC-crowd, and the Democrats lose the House in the process (sometimes you gotta lose some to win in the end ala the Republicans in 2018)... what is in it for Nancy? 
 

i dunno, she must be getting senile.

 

what she has effectively done, is put them in a no win situation. if they vote to impeach, they run the risk of alienating voters in those districts that Dems narrowly won. if those Dems from those districts vote to not impeach and Trump is ultimately not impeached, then the Repubs get to claim bi-partisan support for the president. lose lose for the Dems, win win for the Repubs. 

 

this is exactly why i refer often to them as the Donner Party.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

something about cartels?

Edited December 6, 2019 by Foxx

[Foxx]

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1203064112881848321

 

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1203064205013913600

 

https://twitter.com/ChadPergram/status/1203065011071045634

 

[Foxx]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

FYI, broken image.

Edited December 6, 2019 by Foxx

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Foxx said:

FYI, broken image.

 

I think he misspelled "00b408cce901."

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, Foxx said:

FYI, broken image.

 

It was this: 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

It was this: 

 

Trump hasn't been that svelte since...never.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Trump hasn't been that svelte since...never.

 

Well, he'd be bigger but they took all the cookies. 

[Buffalo_Gal]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

 

IF that is true, this is even more perplexing. 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

It's not an oversight.   The party leadership genuinely doesn't care about moderate Democrats - they believe moderates are Republicans in sheep's clothing.

[Foxx]

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

...

#extinction

[Hedge]

1 hour ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

Well I figured that, but if people can read a date, that does not fly. 

These people are all about personal "enrichment".  I have not really heard much about Nancy's graft. Anyone know what it was?  Did she make her money from the DOD's missing billions? The Ukraine? China? Iran? I'm wondering if she is personally implicated in any of the ***** that is about to hit the fan? (I have not heard she was, so I am really wondering.)
 

 

Adding this to what has already been mentioned...Pelosi's son had his hand in the Ukraine cookie jar. Queued up below for a brief overview:

 

 

Also, you can watch from about the 1 minute mark to hear what else is alleged against him (defrauding property and weaponizing CPS to have her children removed).