Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

gotta hand it to Sonderland, he should be sweating like near-death Elvis for getting totally roasted the last 15 minutes for his fables and lies

 

he is contorting well enough when he has to go off Schiff's teleprompter and script

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You obviously can't read, or you're selective choosing to ignore that Sondland has said numerous times that the quid pro quo he was aware of involved trading a White House meeting for a public announcement into the Bidens. 

 

Folks like you are why the Dems are schitting the bed with these useless hearings. You believe everything you are told. Everything. 

 

Unable to think for yourself,  you grab whatever flag they give you without thought and wave it enthusiastically without stopping to realize it's not a flag, but a parachute with holes in and that wind you think is at your back is coming from below you.

 

Stop. Breathe. Look at everything again objectively. The truth will be there, but you have to see it for yourself because your party leaders are lying to you.

 

  • Like (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Doesn't have to be funds. Just has to be something of "value". 


For example, if Zelinsky asked his justice department to investigate Biden or Burisma, and doing that cost any amount of money, that would be an example of value.

 

It's all really easy to follow. Just read the link.

 

Sections B, F and G were all violated. 

 

There was nothing of value in the meeting for public announcement quid pro quo. That is why the funds need to be tied to it, and they dont have one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“‘I would ask Zelensky to look him in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine’s new justice folks are in place mid-Sept, that Ze should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to Potus and to the US,’ Sondland wrote in the Aug. 22 email, using an acronym for president of the United States. ‘Hopefully, that will break the logjam’ on funding.”

 

 

 

Just now, Bray Wyatt said:

 

There was nothing of value in the meeting for public announcement quid pro quo. That is why the funds need to be tied to it, and they dont have one

That's just stupid

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

Folks like you are why the Dems are schitting the bed with these useless hearings. You believe everything you are told. Everything. 

 

Unable to think for yourself,  you grab whatever flag they give you without thought and wave it enthusiastically without stopping to realize it's not a flag, but a parachute with holes in and that wind you think is at your back is coming from below you.

 

Stop. Breathe. Look at everything again objectively. The truth will be there, but you have to see it for yourself because your party leaders are lying to you.

 

 

Unable to think for myself? I'm just looking at the testimony that's been given by witnesses under oath. 

 

Trump extorted a foreign government for his political gain domestically. In doing so he broke federal campaign finance laws. 

 

All of that is obvious at this point.

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

25 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

No.

 

Others were just not told there was a quid pro quo.


They didn't have access to Trump or Guiliani like Sondland had. 

 

And the one time Sondland asked Trump directly what he wanted regarding Ukraine, what was the answer he got?

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

1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

There was nothing of value in the meeting for public announcement quid pro quo. That is why the funds need to be tied to it, and they dont have one

 

You can't honestly believe this can you?

 

Funds don't have to be tied to it. Federal law is clear in that regard. 

 

Trump broke multiple laws. That's very clear after today's testimony. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And the one time Sondland asked Trump directly what he wanted regarding Ukraine, what was the answer he got?

That's because Volker was calling it what it was! Of course Trump is going to lie. 

 

I mean, my God, Trump lies constantly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to bribery?  I thought that was the focus group tested choice infraction?  NPCs received new programming again!  Must be NPC programming software 2.0 to have everyone pivot so quickly!!

 

 

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

11 minutes ago, njbuff said:

 Schiff deserves a Stone Cold Stunner.

 

How is Kate today?

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

And the one time Sondland asked Trump directly what he wanted regarding Ukraine, what was the answer he got?

 

*That one time two days after Trump learned the whistle was blown

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dubs said:

What happened to bribery?  I thought that was the focus group tested choice infraction?  NPCs received new programming again!  Must be NPC programming software 2.0 to have everyone pivot so quickly!!

 

 

Such conduct becomes bribery only when there is an identifiable exchange between the contribution and official acts, previous or subsequent, and the term quid pro quo denotes such an exchange.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You can't honestly believe this can you?

 

Funds don't have to be tied to it. Federal law is clear in that regard. 

 

Trump broke multiple laws. That's very clear after today's testimony. 

 

Yes it sounds to me like you are looking to force fit a law to fit what you believe to have taken place. A meeting does not have any value, and to think using a meeting as a tool to extort a foreign country is a joke

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said:

 

Yes it sounds to me like you are looking to force fit a law to fit what you believe to have taken place. A meeting does not have any value, and to think using a meeting as a tool to extort a foreign country is a joke

 

I'm not forcing anything. There is plenty you can read online to educate yourself on the issue. 

 

The meeting isn't the issue. The issue is the investigation into a political rival.


Trump extorted an ally at war with a US enemy to benefit himself politically. Laws were clearly broken, even if you don't agree with them. 

Edited by jrober38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not forcing anything. There is plenty you can read online to educate yourself on the issue. 

 

The meeting isn't the issue. The issue is the investigation into a political rival.


Trump extorted an ally at war with a US enemy to benefit himself politically. Laws were clearly broken, even if you don't agree with them. 


wrong again. 
 

investigating corruption is permissible and expected, especially when it’s someone so high up in US government as Joe Biden. 
 

 

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

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not forcing anything. There is plenty you can read online to educate yourself on the issue. 

 

The meeting isn't the issue. The issue is the investigation into a political rival.


Trump extorted an ally at war with a US enemy to benefit himself politically. Laws were clearly broken, even if you don't agree with them. 

 

The only thing confirmed by Sondland in regards to a this for that was the meeting for announcement. That does not come close to extortion. The investigation aspect has to do with corruption, and was something that was brought up before Biden declared he was running, this is not new.

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

15 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Unable to think for myself? I'm just looking at the testimony that's been given by witnesses under oath. 

 

Trump extorted a foreign government for his political gain domestically. In doing so he broke federal campaign finance laws. 

 

All of that is obvious at this point.

 

No, you're actually looking at the reports of the testimony.  If you were looking at the testimony, you see it wasn't nearly this unambiguous.

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

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Waiting on the actual indictment -- will be interesting reading.

 

 

Which bottom tier Dem candidate is going to hammer Biden with this tonight?

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

1 minute ago, Uncle Joe said:

But isn't this investigation now illegal because Trump asked for an investigation?

Asking for a friend.

 

Yes, Hunter Biden is retroactively entering the 2020 race, so off limits.  You absolutely cannot investigate potential political opponents for their alleged past misdeeds, but you can indeed plan to "investigate" them in the future in case they win (insurance policy).

  • Haha (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Which bottom tier Dem candidate is going to hammer Biden with this tonight?

none. their polling will have shown them that it is not a good thing for a Dem. that or the DNC will have prohibited it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...