Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

WHISLEBLOWER: Trump manipulating intelligance

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sorry, kiddo, but firsthand witness testimony trumps guesswork and rumor. When a firsthand witness who spoke directly with the President testifies that he was told unequivocally that there was to be no quid pro quo, and nobody was able to directly challenge his testimony, then it was all over for the prosecution.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Sorry, kiddo, but firsthand witness testimony trumps guesswork and rumor. When a firsthand witness who spoke directly with the President testifies that he was told unequivocally that there was to be no quid pro quo, and nobody was able to directly challenge his testimony, then it was all over for the prosecution.
      Oh how with such ease the biased mind ignores the facts. Sondlund testified that he personally delivered the message to the Ukrainian President that military aid was contingent on the investigation into Biden.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Electric Skeptic View Post
        Not interested in this sort of childishness.
        Not interested in your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories either.

        No, it was not.
        Yeah it was.


        Of course he was. He was impeached because of his use of the office to pressure a foreign power to attack an opponent.
        Which was a lie. He used the military funds to pressure a foreign power to investigate a potentially treasonous manipulation of the sitting Vice President's son. That the same former VP announced his candidacy for POTUS 3 weeks later isn't - nor should it be - Trump's problem.


        Not interested in this sort of childishness, either.
        Then don't make childish responses.
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
          Oh how with such ease the biased mind ignores the facts. Sondlund testified that he personally delivered the message to the Ukrainian President that military aid was contingent on the investigation into Biden.
          Yes, he did say that, but he said it was based entirely on his own unfounded presumption. He never given that directive from the President himself, and when he finally did ask the President directly, the President set him straight with zero ambiguity: "No quid pro quo."

          What was that you were saying about the ease with which biased minds ignore the facts?
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            Yes, he did say that, but he said it was based entirely on his own unfounded presumption. He never given that directive from the President himself, and when he finally did ask the President directly, the President set him straight with zero ambiguity: "No quid pro quo."

            What was that you were saying about the ease with which biased minds ignore the facts?
            And if you believe that the "ambassador" just came to that assumption all on his own, that he didn't consult with the president before delivering that message, then I still have that bridge for sale. Sondlund knew, just like everyone else working on behalf of the US in Ukraine who knew about the hold-up on the military aid, knew what was going on and testified to that fact. The no "quid pro quo" remark was simply Trump covering his tracks, covering up his corrupt intentions. The Senate republicans simply let him off the hook, just like they let him off the hook for the infamous phone call with President Zelinsky himself wherein he personally requested the quid pro quo deal and then hid the evidence, the transcript of the call, in a highly secure server. Why do you think he was hiding the transcript out of the reach of oversight in the first place if it was all so innocent? This is why I believe you are just feigning ignorance, because you're not stupid, you're just complicit with the actions of the corrupt autocrat.
            Last edited by JimL; 09-15-2020, 03:57 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
              And if you believe that the "ambassador" just came to that assumption all on his own...
              That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.
              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
              Than a fool in the eyes of God


              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.
                Of course you don't.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Sorry, kiddo, but firsthand witness testimony trumps guesswork and rumor. When a firsthand witness who spoke directly with the President testifies that he was told unequivocally that there was to be no quid pro quo, and nobody was able to directly challenge his testimony, then it was all over for the prosecution.
                  That's not how it works, because people lie.
                  America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Not interested in your tinfoil hat conspiracy theories either.
                    Since I've offered none, irrelevant.


                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Yeah it was.
                    Nope.


                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Which was a lie. He used the military funds to pressure a foreign power to investigate a potentially treasonous manipulation of the sitting Vice President's son. That the same former VP announced his candidacy for POTUS 3 weeks later isn't - nor should it be - Trump's problem.
                    He attempted to use his office to pressure a foreign power to attack an opponent.


                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Then don't make childish responses.
                    The childish responses have been all yours.
                    America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Electric Septic View Post
                      That's not how it works, because people lie.
                      Then it was up to the prosecution to impeach his credibility. They failed to do so. Therefore, the law presumes that he is telling the truth.

                      That's how it works.
                      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                      Than a fool in the eyes of God


                      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                      Comment


                      • In other news, Barack and Joe were well aware that Hunter Biden's Ukraine employer was up to no good.

                        The Obama administration allowed then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to continue working at Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, even after U.S. officials established “strong” evidence suggesting that the company had engaged in corrupt activities in 2014, Just the News reported Monday, citing State Department memos and interviews.

                        Hunter, the son of now-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, served on Burisma Holding’s board of directors from April 2014 to April 2019, getting paid tens of thousands of dollars each month, more than the average executives with similar positions.

                        The U.S. investigators reportedly believed Burisma paid a $7 million bribe to local prosecutors between May and December 2014.

                        According to the State memos, U.S. officials’ concerns about the bribe came to light in January 2015, only months after Burisma hired Hunter and following the opening of two significant corruption probes against the gas firm by investigators in Ukraine and Britain, respectively.

                        https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rved-on-board/
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          In other news, Barack and Joe were well aware that Hunter Biden's Ukraine employer was up to no good.

                          The Obama administration allowed then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter to continue working at Ukrainian gas firm Burisma, even after U.S. officials established “strong” evidence suggesting that the company had engaged in corrupt activities in 2014, Just the News reported Monday, citing State Department memos and interviews.

                          Hunter, the son of now-Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden, served on Burisma Holding’s board of directors from April 2014 to April 2019, getting paid tens of thousands of dollars each month, more than the average executives with similar positions.

                          The U.S. investigators reportedly believed Burisma paid a $7 million bribe to local prosecutors between May and December 2014.

                          According to the State memos, U.S. officials’ concerns about the bribe came to light in January 2015, only months after Burisma hired Hunter and following the opening of two significant corruption probes against the gas firm by investigators in Ukraine and Britain, respectively.

                          https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rved-on-board/
                          And lest we forget this one:

                          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/p...inian-oil-deal

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            That's what he testified to under oath, and nobody was ever able to credibly challenge his testimony, so I see no good reason to doubt him.
                            I would’ve thought the fact that he continued to act under his assumptions would be a reason for doubt.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                              I would’ve thought the fact that he continued to act under his assumptions would be a reason for doubt.
                              No, because he admitted they were only his unfounded assumptions and not orders from the President.
                              Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                              But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                              Than a fool in the eyes of God


                              From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                                Then it was up to the prosecution to impeach his credibility. They failed to do so. Therefore, the law presumes that he is telling the truth.

                                That's how it works.
                                No, it's not. The law presumes nothing of the kind. The jury decides. And in this case the jury were those who voted on his impeachment - where the Republicans bent over and took it for the party.
                                America - too good to let the conservatives drag it back to 1950.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, 10-24-2020, 08:17 AM
                                3 responses
                                56 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 10-23-2020, 04:56 PM
                                29 responses
                                192 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Started by Juvenal, 10-23-2020, 11:08 AM
                                10 responses
                                103 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Juvenal
                                by Juvenal
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 10-23-2020, 08:52 AM
                                6 responses
                                66 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Ronson, 10-22-2020, 10:59 PM
                                78 responses
                                593 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Working...
                                X