This 'bout to get good!
Will this backfire like it did with Republicans and Bill Clinton? Something tells me yes.
Printable View
This 'bout to get good!
Will this backfire like it did with Republicans and Bill Clinton? Something tells me yes.
I don't think it makes it out of inquiry.
I sincerely hope they investigate both Biden and Trump on the Ukraine shit.
No celebration here. Not a good day for America. This is going to eat up time and energy that could have been spent on doing more productive things.
Is this your way of saying "Oh crap, we're about to be crushed by this" ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Like you give a single shit. You've been here cheer leading every dumb thing the Democrats have been doing since 2016, and now you're worried about this "eating up time and energy" that could have been spent on more important things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Your hands ain't clean, yo!
Rofl. He’s correct, this once, though.
I'm glad some people are finally admitting this truth that everyone else realized back when it was actually happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It'll be interesting to see if they now are going to do something about all the ignored subpoenas. Pelosi has been adamantly against impeachment throughout everything so I'm surprised she's flipped her stance.
Maybe pence is caught up in all of this, which would I guess mean she's be the next in line.
You'd need the Senate to convict both of them. That isn't happening.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Well. Who knows what turns up in investigations. Imagine that man having to testify under oath
Another shit show.
Even if it turned up both were bad people, they'd ram through a new VP nom before they let Pelosi take over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Knowing Democrats they would immediately try to impeach that person too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
All the Dems know that "Hey, we might get an impeachment, but we'll never get a conviction." They are probably thinking it'll make their base see them as people doing what they said they will do or whatever. History isn't usually on the side of people impeaching a President though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It's more likely that Nancy is using this to blow up the far left moon bats in her party. I think she dislikes the "squad" more than she dislikes Trump. Nancy can easily say, when this falls apart, "I told you so" to the clowns that are fucking up the democrat image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Tulsi Gabbard thinks it is a bad idea.
Supposedly 1/3rd of House Democrats are against the idea.
I'm guessing those are all of the moderate Democrats in swing districts that are going to piss off a lot of their constituents no matter which way they vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Just imagine if the President of the United States directed his VP to create close ties with one of the most corrupt governments on the planet and then that VP worked his own son onto the board of the largest energy firm in said country. And now a new outsider has been elected president of said country that wants to root out and eradicate all corruption there himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
News that he's talking to Trump surfaces, and now Pelosi wants to impeach. Hmm. Why now?
Trump has reportedly caved and decided to release the whistle blower complaint. Hold your breath. Things are moving fast.
Things are moving fast? That's an upgrade from the "things are heating up" from 2016 right? Need a new thread...
Like destroying our alliances with our European allies, raising self-destructive tariffs against the other superpowers and personally enriching yourself by sponsoring government-led programs and events at your properties? All the energy alone that can be used to entice or strongarm ex-Soviet republics into spreading misinformation about your political opponents will go to waste with a formal impeachment investigation!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Is this the worst case of TDS on the PC or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Funny, Poland wants more of us there. 1500 more as of today I believe? So destroyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
https://i1.wp.com/www.ijeomakola.com...00%2C266&ssl=1Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Don't blame Seran.. he's always beat the drum he was told to beat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
He's a fucking retarded sheep.
Jake Tapper over on CNN is already suggesting Trump is going to released a doctored transcript of the phone call in which no one with first hand knowledge of said phone call has even said anything about the phone call.
Damn, I forgot the first rule of Fight Club.. Never point out the actions of a Republican president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Even Back isn't on the crazy impeachment train. When you're so far gone that Back looks somewhat sensible next to you then it just might be time to rethink not only your political views but also your life in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Huge difference between a waffle-maker like Back and the Fox News regurgitating sheeple the rest of you are. It's /almost/ shocking the blindness to actual actions taken by a President that you are willing to overlook.
I don’t much like Trump but I think he was onto something with Biden and Ukraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
From NYTimes article on the Biden/Ukraine connection:
Quote:
But new details about Hunter Biden’s involvement, and a decision this year by the current Ukrainian prosecutor general to reverse himself and reopen an investigation into Burisma, have pushed the issue back into the spotlight just as the senior Mr. Biden is beginning his 2020 presidential campaign.
They show how Hunter Biden and his American business partners were part of a broad effort by Burisma to bring in well-connected Democrats during a period when the company was facing investigations backed not just by domestic Ukrainian forces but by officials in the Obama administration. Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma prompted concerns among State Department officials at the time that the connection could complicate Vice President Biden’s diplomacy in Ukraine, former officials said.
...
And one of his most memorable performances came on a trip to Kiev in March 2016, when he threatened to withhold $1 billion in United States loan guarantees if Ukraine’s leaders did not dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, who had been accused of turning a blind eye to corruption in his own office and among the political elite.
The pressure campaign worked. The prosecutor general, long a target of criticism from other Western nations and international lenders, was soon voted out by the Ukrainian Parliament.
Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden, Mr. Biden’s younger son, who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.
If everything being reported on now is true then it looks like this is all going to blow up in the Democrats' face within the week.
Apparently the IG, the one everyone thought was such a big deal because he said the "whistleblower's" complaint was valid, has determined that the "whistleblower" has political bias against the president.
Not only that but Trump will release the unredacted transcript of the phone call (but oh yeah, we have already determined he will fake that), the redacted complaint from the whistleblower, and is clearing the way for the whistleblower to speak with Congressional investigators.
For someone engaging in a coverup Trump sure is going about it the wrong way.
Yeah, he's not clearing the way for the whistle blower, the reporter required by law to report suspected crimes by the President. Unless you're meaning he wont' send his lawyers to fall in front of that train in an effort to slow it down.
"Required by law to report suspected crimes by the president."Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Where do you get your dumb shit from?
And again this person is NOT a whistleblower. Trump is not part of the intelligence community, and even if he were, a whistleblower has to have direct knowledge of what the fuck they are talking about.
You can't pass along second hand rumors in an effort to further your political agenda and then demand whistleblower protection.
Executive Order 12333, signed by none other than Ronald Reagan requires the following;Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
1.7Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community. The heads of departments and agencies with organizations in the Intelligence Community or the heads of such organizations, as appropriate, shall:
(a) Report to the Attorney General possible violations of federal criminal laws by employees and of specified federal criminal laws by any other person as provided in procedures agreed upon by the Attorney General and the head of the department or agency concerned, in a manner consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, as specified in those procedures;
Following the law is furthering a political agenda? How close are you to joining FoxNews in labeling anyone going against the current administration as a traitor, regardless of lawfulness?
Let me see if I understand your dumb train of thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
The person who actually heard the supposed illegal action made by Trump didn't feel it rose to the level of a crime, or just didn't bother to report it, but someone who heard this person say something thought it rose to the level of a crime and this doesn't scream political agenda to you?
The IG is expected within the next few days to say the "whistleblower" has a political bias against Trump. If true are you going to slink back into the shadows until the next fake outrage the Democrats gin up, or are you going to then say Trump forced the guy to say that or some shit? Just curious how bad your TDS really is. You might be the next time4fun, here to save us from the mundane bullshit by providing us all with a common target to mock and laugh at. Our savior is here!
It's eerie that knowing nothing of the person's political affiliation, activism or history that you assume there is some sort of bias.
A crime is a crime, whether you have knowledge of it first person, second person or third person.
It's eerie that you "know" this is a crime based on next to zero information. The transcript hasn't even come out yet, the "whistleblower" hasn't even said what they know yet. But you know it's a crime already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Yup, that is exactly what Executive Order 12333 was put into place to address. Intelligence officials becoming aware of suspected crimes by the Executive. We'll see how it all plays out, but I suspect the Senate will decline to try the impeachment referral, but John Roberts will push it forward.
A real impeachment inquiry hasn't even been passed yet and you already suspect the Senate won't try the impeachment that is nowhere close to even being voted on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
I would say it will be fun watching you meltdown when nothing comes of this, but I think you're the type of person to just tuck his tail between his legs and run away when you are made to look the fool.
Did this guy really use waffle maker as an insult?
Yeah that was quite odd, wasn't sure how to respond to that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
from "The Trump 2020 Election Victory"....published in May 2029...
Chapter 5: The Impeachment
Most political historians agree that the fateful event for the Democratic Party occurred on September 24, 2019 when Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump. Although the resulting impeachment proceedings are now widely understood as one of the greatest political errors in American history, at the time many in the Democratic Party believed it was the best way to ensure their future and to rid themselves of a President that they very much despised...
Cut a fart, candork.Quote:
Originally Posted by Candor
This is now correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Not sure how you convinced yourself of that. Impeach the idiot. Its sad he even got elected in the first place. His greatest accomplishments are trying to undo everything Obama did, taking our country 8 years backward, because Trump is plain and simple a butthurt snowflake who is all ego and no intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The best thing he could do right now is resign and let everyone get back to work running the country.
Translation: I AM THE RETARD CHAMPION AND I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANYONE CALLING ME SENSIBLE!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
So you know, this is one of the reasons he was elected. And I agree, they are great accomplishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
If the democrats didn't have so many useful idiots in their corner like you, this could have been avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
But this is going to be good for republicans, so it's all good.
Thanks for being a giant tard.
Shut the fuck up Fallen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
Loser. :lol:
https://i.imgflip.com/3bivw5.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Classic quid pro quo;
"I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes."
"I would like you to do us a favor through because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it."
Defense aid is put on hold, less than two weeks later Ukrainian President calls and references the aid, Trump immediately asks for a favor and proceeds to outline what it is he wants and says Barr or Guilliani will contact about the details. August. Rudy Guilliani meets with the Ukrainian attache and boom, $250 million in aid released weeks later.
Definition: Quid pro quo - a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
The tiny writing at the bottom of the first page says it's not a transcript.
In the phone call, Trump really trashed Obama's last ambassador to Ukraine. He didn't know her name, or course, just calling her "the woman."
https://i.imgur.com/HwUbNwg.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Damn Back wtf?
Undoing everything Obama did is exactly what we needed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Stop being a butthurt retard, which we know in your case is impossible.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/f606...itemid=7445527
Who's triggered? We're anxiously awaiting the results that will yet again make democrats look like complete fucking idiots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
And then your butthurt will be even worse than it is right now.
Roughly half of these comments won't age well. Lol
Can I ask why you're so sure this isn't a whistleblower? I mean, the IG confirmed it's a whistleblower.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is either private or public. ... Because of this, a number of laws exist to protect whistleblowers.
I don't know anything about the whistleblower laws so can you be considered a whistleblower if all your info is second hand? The person didn't hear any of the conversation they were just told about it by someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by Ashlander
I suppose in the dictionary sense he/she/it can be a whistleblower, I mean if they want protections under the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
From what I understand you need to have first hand knowledge if you want whistleblower protections, otherwise people could easily abuse these laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashlander
"Oh shit, I might get fired for incompetence! Uhh uhhh! Well....I heard a rumor that...."
And now the person can't get fired.
>yesQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
A good positive attitude never hurts.
You don't have to have firsthand to report something you feel is illegal. You'll be protected. Both sides are being hyper-partisan, as usual. I still don't see this impeachment inquiry making it out as anything more than an inquiry.
Also how did I know those inflicted with TDS would read more into Trump's phone call than is there?
I had a feeling there was nothing there when I checked the news in the morning and I didn't see wall to wall coverage of this. For the thing that is going to bring down Trump you would think this would be the only news story of the day, but it's hardly even a story.
That's because there is no story here, as per usual.
Trump asked the Ukrainian president to investigate whether or not Biden withheld a billion dollars in aid until the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor who was investigating his son? Oh no! We can't have prosecutors investigating alleged criminal activities of DEMOCRATS! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
Reported for suspected illegal activities that ClydeR told me he heard about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I'm not your employer. I'll be suing you for slandering my good name.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Trump is holding a press conference at 4 eastern.
What do you think he will say? He might announce his retirement and welcome our new President Pence. Or he might blame the whole Ukraine thing on Rudy Giuliani, whom he barely knows. Or he might attack the anonymous whistleblower and say the whistleblower's spouse is ugly. Or he might say that he did exactly the right thing and then get Attorney General Barr, who I'm pretty sure is a close relative of Roseanne, to announce the appointment of a special counsel to investigate corruption by the Bidens.
He's going to stand up and complain that he's being persecuted and it's all a witch hunt by angry Democrats. Then he's going to give his trademark orange smirk and hope the Senate Republicans continue to cover his mistake-prone ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
You've been saying this for 2 years now.... remember how you were so convinced because they said he colluded with Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
You're being played kid. Again.
You mean like most of the liberal posts in the "Russia investigation heating up" thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Lol indeed.
Remember the "ZOMG RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!" bullshit you swallowed without a thought?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
I think you should probably go read the Mueller report in more detail. The only reason Mueller didn't recommend Trump be prosecuted was because he didn't have the legal ability to do so. Personally, I don't think Trump "colluded" or "conspired" so much as "foolishly encouraged"; he was more a moronic recipient of Russian aid than an active party. And it should really be a concern to you that Russia thought Trump should be president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
The Senate Republicans won't have to do shit. He isn't going to be impeached in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
I've already heard folks downplaying the Impeachment Inquiry as them just doing that they've been doing but under that name now.
False. Who would have thought Briarfox was just a CNN puppet?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Unfortunately, that's probably true. I think it'll take more of a smoking gun than pressuring Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden's kid to turn Senate Repubs against Trump. His base won't care and the Senate will ignore any ethical breaches unless doing so will backfire on them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Who thought you could speak around Trump's dick in your mouth 24/7?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's exactly what happened. An official impeachment inquiry requires a vote in the House, of which none took place. Pelosi basically just said we are going to continue doing what we have been doing but now all of the separate investigations are under the umbrella of an "impeachment inquiry."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Let's play a game. Quote the exact part of Mueller's report where it spells out that the only reason he didn't recommend prosecuting Trump was because he wasn't legally allowed to.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Shit Mueller even testified under oath before Congress that it was not true that he didn't recommend prosecuting the president only because he was not legally allowed to. But you know, Briarfox of the PC knows more than Mueller himself.
What a CNN shill you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Where did Trump pressure anything in that phone call? Saying he should look into Biden's mess in regards to threatening Ukraine is now "pressuring"? How quickly the TDS squad has dropped the "OMG! QUID PRO QUO! IMPEACH!" to "Well...he 'pressured' him."
The Ukrainian president himself said he wasn't pressured. But what does he know? He's only the other half of that phone call conversation! Again we must all go to Briarfox of the PC for the REAL facts.
The transcript is published. Please show me the 8 times in it. Take your time, but you only get to reference the transcript one time, and can't multiply things by 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
He's probably going to say you're a huge retard.Quote:
Originally Posted by ClydeR
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
You mean these reasons?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
Mueller's report lays out three main reasons why prosecutors didn't indict Trump or suggest he should be charged:
They adhered to the OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
They believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
Mueller did not consider filing a sealed indictment against Trump out of fear that it would be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-...o-his-report-5
You literally just quoted a news article, because we all know how accurate those have been lately!Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Good job.
:LOL: Ok, Business Week is a completely unreliable news source. I should have gone to Breitbart!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Remember how the news has been reporting the past 48 hours that Trump engaged in a quid pro quo with Ukraine to go after his political opponent? Remember how now the story has morphed to "Well...pressured..."Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Just quote the Mueller report itself. You DID read it and didn't just rely on Rachel Maddow to tell you what it said right?
This is awkward. Trump is more than 15 minutes late. There must be some last minute second thoughts about what he will say. They may be waiting on Justice Roberts to arrive with the Bible to swear in Pence.
Here's the exact section from the report:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
I expect you're too busy screaming to read any of that, of course. You get more unhinged daily.Quote:
First, a traditional prosecution or declination decision entails a binary determination to
initiate or decline a prosecution, but we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial
judgment. The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has issued an opinion finding that “the indictment
or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would impermissibly undermine the capacity of the
executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions” in violation of “the
constitutional separation of powers.”1 Given the role of the Special Counsel as an attorney in the
Department of Justice and the framework of the Special Counsel regulations, see 28 U.S.C. § 515;
28 C.F.R. § 600.7(a), this Office accepted OLC’s legal conclusion for the purpose of exercising
prosecutorial jurisdiction. And apart from OLC’s constitutional view, we recognized that a federal
criminal accusation against a sitting President would place burdens on the President’s capacity to
govern and potentially preempt constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.2
Second, while the OLC opinion concludes that a sitting President may not be prosecuted,
it recognizes that a criminal investigation during the President’s term is permissible.3 The OLC
opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office.4 And if
individuals other than the President committed an obstruction offense, they may be prosecuted at
this time. Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available.
Third, we considered whether to evaluate the conduct we investigated under the Justice
Manual standards governing prosecution and declination decisions, but we determined not to apply
an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. The
threshold step under the Justice Manual standards is to assess whether a person’s conduct
“constitutes a federal offense.” U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Justice Manual § 9-27.220 (2018) (Justice
Manual). Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges
can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusation is through a
speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An
individual who believes he was wrongly accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In
contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought,
affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator.5
The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case
of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusation of a crime, even in an internal report,
could carry consequences that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice. OLC noted similar
concerns about sealed indictments. Even if an indictment were sealed during the President’s term,
OLC reasoned, “it would be very difficult to preserve [an indictment’s] secrecy,” and if an
indictment became public, “[t]he stigma and opprobrium” could imperil the President’s ability to
govern.”6 Although a prosecutor’s internal report would not represent a formal public accusation
akin to an indictment, the possibility of the report’s public disclosure and the absence of a neutral
adjudicatory forum to review its findings counseled against potentially determining “that the
person’s conduct constitutes a federal offense.” Justice Manual § 9-27.220.
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
LOL, I laughed :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
I didn't think the NY Post was that far right leaning, but I guess so. Nice opinion piece.
https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/ukrain...n-controversy/
The problem with folks like Tgo01 is no matter how much evidence or proof you dig up, you'll always be ridiculed and ordered to produce more in further defense of your argument. People like It don't bother with fact, they go write op-eds for FoxNews and Breitbart screaming as loudly and often as they can knowing they'll never be asked to provide substance.
The last sentence is all that needs to be read.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
"Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him."
The report finds that Trump didn't commit a crime. There is no such thing as being exonerated when there is no evidence that a crime was committed. The exoneration takes place when there is no evidence, quit being retarded.
You, Mueller and the democrats need to go back and take criminal justice 101. Unless of course you knowingly don't give a fuck about our justice system, well.., that would make you all tyrants.
The way Mueller (let's face it, Mueller didn't write the report) worded this, it basically states "We couldn't find evidence but we don't want to admit that we're retarded"
Imagine being so vastly retarded that you have come up with your own evidence even after the DOJ didn't find shit after 3 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You just quoted something that invalidates your entire argument. it also does not exonerate him." The entirety of the report is based on the fact that there's no jurisdiction to charge a crime. The sentence clearly points out that the report does not charge nor exonerate TrumpQuote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
You're an idiot.
You are innocent until proven guilty. They said there is nothing pointing to him committing a crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
So we spent 2 1/2 years to find no evidence but we can't exonerate because we have no evidence to prove that a crime was committed. This is not how the American legal system works. How this was even investigated without any evidence proves it's a sham, a county judge wouldn't even consider this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Trump in his presser saying "Dems should ask for all the conversations. Pence's conversations. The first conversation. They were perfect. Wonderful conversations".
Troll ranking = Epic.
So no where in the Mueller report did it state that the only reason he didn't charge the president was because he couldn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Thought as much. Don't you feel cleaner now having actually read the report and coming to the concl...oh that's right, you still think somewhere in there he is saying if it weren't for that darn OLC opinion I would have indicted that bastard!
How do you still say this with a straight face when Mueller, the man himself, testifying under oath before congress, said that narrative was NOT true? How do you do that?
Aren't you a teacher or something? How did you get that job? "I hate America and Democracy more than any of these other communists applying for this job!" It's the only thing that makes sense after watching you fail so hard at even the simplest of tasks over and over again.
That's not true. I just want SOME evidence to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
Like for example: show me in the transcript exactly where Trump said something to the effect of "You won't see a dime until you prosecute Biden's son!"
Just that? Am I asking too much? I guess I am :(
QEDQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
See what I mean? It's almost too easy with you TDS morons.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
There were some decent political discussions here before Trump won. Sure there was always name calling and bickering and trolling, but now it's just beyond retarded.
The Democrats gin up some outrage.
The TDS brigade comes here to froth at the mouth.
Conservatives and even some non-conservatives point out how stupid the Democrats are being.
The Democrats are shown to be wrong.
The TDS brigade goes into hiding for a few weeks until the next ginned up outrage then rinse and repeat.
The report is very clear that Mueller is walking a fine line about what he’s legally allowed to do. You’re like a retarded hydra. Cut off one of your heads and you produce two more to scream more loudly about how you’re right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It’s really more like a rabid throng of MAGA trolls waiting for an opportunity to circle jerk.
I have to start treating you like the other children around here now by repeating myself until you answer:Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
How do you still say this with a straight face when Mueller, the man himself, testifying under oath before congress, said that narrative was NOT true? How do you do that?
Democrats: Trump should get to the bottom of the election interference of 2016!
Trump asks Ukraine to investigate election interference in 2016.
Democrats: OMG! IMPEACH TRUMP! IMPEACH!!!
Go find some evidence to support your retardation so I can show you how you’re wrong, like usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Regardless of your leaning though, the end result is the same, correct?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Nah, saying I can’t prosecute the guy isn’t the same thing as saying he’s innocent. As the report states there, if Mueller thought there was no evidence for wrong doing, he would have said so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You are innocent until proven guilty. If you cannot prove him guilty, he isn't guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Wait you really are unaware of Mueller saying this under oath before congress? You don't remember the whole hubbub when Ted Lieu asked exactly what you are claiming and Mueller initially said he was correct, causing a lot of talk among Democrats how that was all they needed to know that Mueller was giving Congress the go ahead to impeach Trump, then a while later Mueller came back to say he misspoke and that wasn't true at all? Really shows how well you pay attention to political topics you think you're an expert in. Just keep proving all you do is watch CNN and MSNBC and let the adults talk about topics they know what they are talking about, okay little boy?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
But here you go anyways:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJblEIOjkFg
That’s not what’s happening, and I think you know that. Mueller was saying that the OLC decision prevents a sitting president from being indicted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJblEIOjkFgQuote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Mueller is clarifying wording there, not supporting your argument. I imagine this is too complex a thing for you to grasp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Again, you are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of if they could charge him or not. They concluded there isn't enough to charge. Whether or not it exonerates him is irrelevant.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
That's my take as well. I think based on the report, Trump did shady things. But he's still innocent, right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
I really hate that these people call themselves liberals. They are just the opposite in the true sense of the words meaning.
No. This is factually wrong. Mueller said a few things: 1) The OLC decision prevents a sitting president from being indicted, 2) he could be indicted after he left office and so an investigation is warranted, 3) Mueller chose not to make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime because, since he can’t be indicted, it couldn’t go to trial, and he would then have no trial in which to defend himself, which he deserves, and 4) given the above, Mueller can’t charge the president but he also has too much evidence to exonerate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
The unfortunate problem here is that people think in simple binaries like innocent/guilty, and this conclusion is too complex for 90% of people to follow.
You so smart. I no get it.
I have every confidence that you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Innocent until proven guilty is factually wrong? I'm glad I don't live in your idea of America.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
You no smart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
me push button mak simbol on majik windoQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
2016: Trump publically requests Russia to investigate his political opponent. End result: Two year investigation by a special prosecutor resulting in several convictions and pending charges.
2019: Trump requests Ukraine to investigate his political opponent. Having grown more savy, he does it through a normally classified phone call and through back channel Rudy. End Result: Impeachment proceedings.
Does he ever learn? Should have read up on Nixon first..
I think Trump should ask for Hunter Biden’s tax returns.
Troll level epic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
You: The Mueller report literally states the only reason they did not charge Trump with a crime is because of the OLC opinion.
Mueller himself in response to being asked EXACTLY that: "That is not the correct way to say it, as we say in the report: we did NOT reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime."
You: Yeah but what does Mueller know?
Mueller himself in testimony before Congress completely destroys this narrative that the media was pushing for weeks up until Mueller's testimony and here you are still not getting it.
I'll break it down for someone as stupid as yourself to understand.
Mueller's report completely cleared Trump of wrongdoing in regards to the whole Russian collusion nonsense.
Mueller's investigation did not reach a determination one way or the other in regards to the obstruction of justice charge and instead left that up to the DOJ. AG Barr and never-Trumper DAG Rod Rosenstein determined that Trump did not commit the crime of collusion.
You have video evidence of Mueller himself saying what a dumb ass you are for falling for MSNBC's narrative and you still refuse to believe the truth. The media has done a thorough job on brainwashing you. It's probably the best job I have ever seen them do. You should be proud of your one and only accomplishment in life.
That's not what he said at all you useful idiot. He said in the video clip I provided that the OLC opinion did not prevent him from making a determination, but rather they did NOT reach a conclusion as to whether he committed a crime, and thus left it up to the DOJ, who then said no crime was committed.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Your words are literally meaningless because you don't understand a single thing that you are commenting on. It's sad to watch in real time to be honest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
[image]https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/000/554/picard-facepalm.jpg[/image]Quote:
The evidence we obtained about the President’s actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred. Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Honestly man, can you at least know one thing you're talking about before you post again? It would be much appreciated.Quote:
Although the investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
I didn't realize I would break Briarfox so easily.
Me: The Mueller investigation did not reach a determination in charging Trump with obstruction of justice.
Briarfox: NUH UH! It says right in the report that he did but he just couldn't charge a sitting president with a crime!
Me: No, really, here is Mueller himself on video explaining this.
Briarfox: You simpletons only think in binary terms like guilt/innocent! You mere mortals can't comprehend what I know!!!!!
PC: ...
Well, one part of that comment is certainly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You didn't insult 90% of the people here in saying if they disagree with it's because they can't understand what a complex issue this is? You didn't just get finished saying you are smarter than 90% of the general population because they disagree with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
I haven't seen backtracking this fast since the last time Back posted!
I see you still like to hump your strawmen. Carry on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
CNN (and probably other "news" sources) deceptively edited their coverage of the transcript by making it sound like the favor Trump asked was in regards to investigating Biden's son, when in fact the favor was Trump asking Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference.
Now suddenly Democrats are against investigating the 2016 election interference if it's Trump asking for it.
This is why you can't trust the news you read and watch, Briarfox.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Whatever you say, Mr. Genius.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
The Ukraine shit in 2016 and 2018 is going to boomerang on dems. All the posturing will look ridiculous when we see the dems did exactly what the claim trump did.
The goalposts have moved. I repeat: The goalposts have been moved.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1176985213358002176
its politics. I expect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
This is moving at a crazy pace. The second whistleblower is going to make it even more interesting next week.
What exactly is moving at a crazy pace? We already have the transcript which shows absolutely nothing and has already debunked what the first "whistleblower" supposedly said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Wyrom didn't specifically exonerate Briarfox so I guess that means he's guilty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Does whistleblower stand for unsubstantiated claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
cause I claim Backrash is a pedophile. Tags prove it. Prove me wrong.
90 percent of people don't understand he's guilty, but I smrt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The situation is too complex for most people to follow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Completely unrelated. Layoffs tomorrow, I'm good, but I drank so much I'm sweating.
Ah, yes. It wouldn't be proper fiction without a "plot twist character #2".Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
https://media0.giphy.com/media/xT0Gq...tsWY/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Trump economy is great! Layoffs are fake news!Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You're not helping yourself here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You should stop.
Kind of early in the business cycle to be laying people off. Your company must suck.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
Wish you the best. This last year and a half has been crazy at my work too. Survived 3 layoffs, secured a retention bonus, and took on the work of my boss and his boss...with no extra pay. Just happy to still be employed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
And I also got to be the lucky one to let 50+ people know they no longer had a job.
The full "whistleblower" complaint made its way to congress today. Nunes had no comment. Dems had plenty. Sasse came out and said Republicans ought not circle the wagons to support Trump. There's far more to this than a single phone call.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Ukraine also came out and stated bidens case was a prerequisite to any phone calls.
It's not a real layoff, it's a new VP layoff. I.e. new org structure and dead weight moved out. Prob a good thing, long run. But still, being 48 it's not a great feeling seeing a bunch of academia hired into positions they don't know much about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Please. Sasse has been a Never Trumper almost since day 1.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
Sasse also told Democrats to cool it with the impeachment talk and told the media to do their jobs correctly for once. Sasse basically told EVERYONE to relax and let Congress do its job, but I see the fake news you consume didn't bother mentioning any of that.
Speaking of fake news, Chris Cillizza, who calls himself a journalist at CNN, had this to say about the transcript:
Last I checked "pretty darn close to a smoking gun" means absolutely nothing.Quote:
The Ukraine call 'transcript' is pretty darn close to a smoking gun
Not looking good for Team Impeachment/Team Fake News.
The DOJ has already investigated the call in question and said Trump did not break any campaign finance laws.
They also cleared him of any wrongdoing by not sharing the "whistleblower's" complaint with Congress fast enough, saying it didn't meet the definition of urgent under the law.
There is also talk that the lawyer the whistleblower has hired has donated to the Biden campaign.
Looking more and more like yet another manufactured witch hunt, but this is even worse because the person in question doesn't even have first hand knowledge of what happened, rather they heard what happened from someone who heard Trump speak. Talk about a game of telephone. The whistleblower said there was a quid pro quo and Trump pressured the Ukrainian president 8 times to investigate Biden. Instead there was no quid pro quo and Trump brought up Biden once in the context of cracking down on corruption, the entire point that money was withhold from Ukraine in the first place AND the exact same reason the Obama administration threatened to withhold aid to the country.
But let's keep on regurgitating the same fake news over and over again because we hate Trump more than we like facts.
Damn, that's what everyone's missed from the get go Trump's completely honest interest in finding out which nefarious organization hacked the DNC emails and set him up to win by coordinating release schedules with WikiLeaks. I personally forgot that three years after election that it's a very important to bring it up the need for an investigation.. for the first time ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
"We need to impeach Trump for wanting to investigate the 2016 election interference!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
This is too stupid even for you, Seran. Leave that shit for Briarfox.
Oh please. It's been proven that the hack of the DNC emails came Russia, so too did the hacked controller for some of Ukrain's military hardware. That it was brought up once in passing, while Biden and the prosecutor who was ran out by the US, IMF and EU come up more than that shows clearly where Trump's favor was going.
"Once in passing." That was the FAVOR Trump asked for. The "in passing" was mentioning Biden's criminal actions in regards to cracking down on corruption in Ukraine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seran
You're the new general of the TDS army until time4fun comes back. Congrats, Seran! I knew you could do it!
We need time4funs expert analysis on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Wait.. so "B-b-b-b-b-but RUSSIA!!!" is now "B-b-b-b-b-b-but UKRAINE!" and people are still believing them?
Spoiler: Santa Clause isn't real.
Redacted whistleblower complaint - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...nt_unclass.pdf
Inspector General letter - https://intelligence.house.gov/uploa...ni_unclass.pdf
OLC letter - https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1204586/download
Is this whistleblower using bullet points correctly?
Why does the letter read like a 10 year old wrote it?
And holy shit the whole thing is peppered with "I believe" "I was told" and TONS of quotes around words that make no sense, and ALL OF IT is second hand or third hand knowledge.
I did see the whistleblower lawyers are already on gofundme asking for 100K. ROFL. This is going to turn out to be another low level never trumper making shit up and hoping something sticks to Teflon Don.
Isn't that why they call them... talking points?
Are you retarded? Every politician in the world has talking points. You may not agree with them, but they are JUST talking points.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
Yes, absolutely. I also see no problem when all the dems line up and say the exact same thing to the press. It's a strategy. I form my own opinions based on reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
I'm on welfare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Annahlee
So the dem messaging has changed from corruption and abuse of power to cover-up of whistleblower. Sounds like Russia all over again. It's like they haven't learned a thing in 3 years.
What part of "innocent until proven guilty" are you having such a difficult time understanding?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
At this current time, is Trump, legally speaking, considered innocent in regards to Russiagate?
For someone who's supposed to be all smart and enlightened, you seem pretty dumb and full of shit.
You guys are all so busy defending Trump that you aren't thinking. First, what Gelston said was:Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
My comment about being factually wrong was a response to this: "They concluded there isn't enough to charge." This is factually wrong, as I explained.Quote:
Again, you are innocent until proven guilty. Regardless of if they could charge him or not. They concluded there isn't enough to charge. Whether or not it exonerates him is irrelevant.
As for the innocent until proven guilty principle, the law says that right now he is innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty, yes. However, what Mueller said was "I can't indict a sitting president for reasons A, B, and C," not that he wasn't culpable. That's a huge caveat that you all are completely ignoring by substituting a simpler, binary principle (innocent/guilty) that serves your agenda.
Mueller did not conclude that Trump committed a crime. STFU already.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Don’t you have a PhD as well?
You seem to be having a hard time with the whole "no evidence part".Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Mueller did not conclude that Trump had committed a crime because legally he could not do so. All he could do was say that the evidence did not exonerate him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
There is a literal ream of evidence in the Russia report, proving Trump encouraged and benefited from Russian interference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neveragain
You all are being bafflingly obtuse.
I'll match that and raise you one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Schiff claims his summary of Trump's Ukraine call was 'at least part in parody'
They're laying off the entire Gender Studies department!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
He's basically lying on the floor just like Harry Reid did when he fabricated stories about Romney, and then later recounted it, affirmed it was all fabricated, and laughed about lying on the floor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Republicans need to understand Democrats have taken the gloves off the last decade, and fight back.
Let's start accusing them of racism, sexism and corruption, and make them prove their innocence.
She rates this thread 5 dildos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fortybox
Probably.
This is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
So the big bombshell whistleblower report that was supposedly more than just the phone call was indeed just the phone call that we already have the transcript of that shows nothing?
Also this entire thing is just a joke now. No first hand knowledge at all and a lot of “I fell Trump did this bad thing.”
That’s not how whistleblowing is supposed to work. You report on what you know and let the proper authorities determine what if any crime occurred. This is basically Kavanaugh and Russia all rolled into one: report on something with exactly zero facts or details and just tell everyone your feelings are more important than evidence.
In before "I bet he did it on another call though, which means we must investigate and he must release every transcript of every phone call to anyone ever or else he's just proving how guilty he is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You were adament that this wasn't even a whistleblower. I'm not surprised you're struggling to understand that a whistleblower isn't needed to have first hand knowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
There's a lot of information that need corroborating, but based on how Trump has freaked out today ..I'm willing to bet a lot of this is real. I'll wait to decide until the facts come out.
I'm willing to bet a lot of this is fake, like most of the other stuff. But I'm with you on waiting until the facts come out (and we got facts yesterday and speculation today). I'm 100% sure dem will investigate this so we'll all find out in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
The ramblings of the president.
‘Basically, that person never saw the report, never saw the call, he never saw the call — heard something and decided that he or she, or whoever the hell they saw — they’re almost a spy,’ Trump said.
‘I want to know who’s the person, who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information? Because that’s close to a spy,’ he continued. ‘You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? The spies and treason, we used to handle it a little differently than we do now.’
One theory is the idea was to make the transcripts public to isolate the Ukranian President from other European leaders.
Yeah, have to love it when Trump suggests that people in his administration should be executed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfster
You mean how MSNBC pundits said Trump should be executed?Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
That was a stupid comment, but it hardly excuses Trump’s. “Tu quoque” fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Oh okay.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
And you know that was Bill Weld, right, not MSNBC ... ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
90% of people don't understand that when they air that opinion and don't discredit it, it becomes MSNBCs opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
And you realize that Weld's comment was in the end a call for impeachment, and that he was mentioning a statutory penalty for treason?Quote:
Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
90% of people don't care about equivocatingQuote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
As with many people on the right (and some on the left, to be fair), you just want to shout and yell and call names. I congratulate you on your effective adulting.
lolololololol @ "many" people on the right but just "some" on the leftQuote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
Be more disingenuous why don't you. :lol:
Far more crazy rightwingers out there than crazy leftwingers. I blame Fox News highly partisan and dangerously misleading coverage, as well as its near monopolization of the conservative media, for most of it. But wait, don't you have a little Swedish girl who just wants to save the planet to insult some more? That seems like a productive avenue...
Ok there Backfox.Quote:
Originally Posted by BriarFox
https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-lf-...257BC06.0.jpegQuote:
But wait, don't you have a little Swedish girl who just wants to save the planet to insult some more? That seems like a productive avenue...
You're suggesting by your photo of the Coventry Catholic kid, concerning which no one can agree, that it's okay for you and a bunch of other right-wingers to make fun of Greta Thunberg? Hang in there, help is available:
https://twitter.com/markhumphries/st...78666402365440