Current Events > " I will be impeached, Democrats have the votes'' - DonaldTrump.

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3
Ruvan22 10/05/19 8:16:39 PM #102:	karlpilkington4 posted... UnfairRepresent posted... karlpilkington4 posted... What complaint and what transcripts? What are these other calls of treasonous behavior, and who has heard them? I've read the transcripts to the call to the Ukrainian President, and I didn't see any sort of illegal or nefarious activity anywhere in them.A random "whistleblower" saying things, isnt proof He needs to back it with hard evidence But... His/her claims have been backed with hard evidence O_o The transcript of the call backs what the Whistleblower said and Rudy Giuliani has backed up a lot of other shit too. Really the only thing that hasn't been coroberated is there is a lot of "People in the Administration/intelligence commity keep being told to do to dumb/illegal things." and that's the small fry. Also keep in mind the full whistleblower complaint has not been released, only part of it and that's the part which deals with the Ukraine phone call. Giuliani has admitted publically that he asked Ukraine to look into digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son for months. Between May and August. This was before and then after Trump froze the military aid. Trump also freezing the military aid is not in dispute. And he has never expressed a valid reason for doing so. Which is a big deal you ignore. This is a big problem because Giuliani is not part of the US government so he should not be involved in foreign policy and this investigation did not go through the correct channels. It's shady illegal shit before you even get to the phone call. If Ukraine possesses evidence or can obtain evidence that Biden used tax money that benefited his family, then the President has every right to investigate. IF - so far there hasn't been evidence that Biden did any of that, so Trump doesn't have a right to investigate. <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:928386947] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite><quote> What complaint and what transcripts? What are these other calls of treasonous behavior, and who has heard them? I've read the transcripts to the call to the Ukrainian President, and I didn't see any sort of illegal or nefarious activity anywhere in them.A random "whistleblower" saying things, isnt proof He needs to back it with hard evidence</quote> But... His/her claims have been backed with hard evidence O_o The transcript of the call backs what the Whistleblower said and Rudy Giuliani has backed up a lot of other shit too. Really the only thing that hasn't been coroberated is there is a lot of "People in the Administration/intelligence commity keep being told to do to dumb/illegal things." and that's the small fry. Also keep in mind the full whistleblower complaint has not been released, only part of it and that's the part which deals with the Ukraine phone call. Giuliani has admitted publically that he asked Ukraine to look into digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son for months. Between May and August. This was before and then after Trump froze the military aid. Trump also freezing the military aid is not in dispute. And he has never expressed a valid reason for doing so. Which is a big deal you ignore. This is a big problem because Giuliani is not part of the US government so he should not be involved in foreign policy and this investigation did not go through the correct channels. It's shady illegal shit before you even get to the phone call. </quote> If Ukraine possesses evidence or can obtain evidence that Biden used tax money that benefited his family, then the President has every right to investigate. </quote> IF - so far there hasn't been evidence that Biden did any of that, so Trump doesn't have a right to investigate.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Ruvan22 10/05/19 8:19:38 PM #103:	karlpilkington4 posted... Also- One senior administration official said Monday that Trumps decision to hold back the funds was based on his concerns about there being a lot of corruption in Ukraine Why is that not a valid reason? Because it doesn't fit your narrative? Because Trump has lied about many things in the past, so there's as much evidence for Trump to have done it for political reasons as for the "valid" reason. Trump has frequently stated that loyalty, quid pro quo, and asking foreign governments to help against your own citizens are standard practice for him. (the famous "Russia, if you are listening, hack more emails" and "If a foreign government came to me with information on an political opponent, I'd take it" statements). Maybe Trump's real reason doesn't fit your narrative? <cite>Ruvan22 posted [p:928387060] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote> Also- One senior administration official said Monday that Trumps decision to hold back the funds was based on his concerns about there being a lot of corruption in Ukraine Why is that not a valid reason? Because it doesn't fit your narrative?</quote> Because Trump has lied about many things in the past, so there's as much evidence for Trump to have done it for political reasons as for the "valid" reason. Trump has frequently stated that loyalty, quid pro quo, and asking foreign governments to help against your own citizens are standard practice for him. (the famous "Russia, if you are listening, hack more emails" and "If a foreign government came to me with information on an political opponent, I'd take it" statements). Maybe Trump's real reason doesn't fit your narrative?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
IllegalAlien 10/05/19 8:24:50 PM #104:	Trump doesn't have the right to "investigate" a political rival, utilizing a foreign government, while withholding 40 million in aid. Come the fuck on now. --- "Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience." <cite>IllegalAlien posted [p:928387211] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Trump doesn't have the right to "investigate" a political rival, utilizing a foreign government, while withholding 40 million in aid. Come the fuck on now.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/05/19 8:26:29 PM #105:	Ruvan22 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... UnfairRepresent posted... karlpilkington4 posted... What complaint and what transcripts? What are these other calls of treasonous behavior, and who has heard them? I've read the transcripts to the call to the Ukrainian President, and I didn't see any sort of illegal or nefarious activity anywhere in them.A random "whistleblower" saying things, isnt proof He needs to back it with hard evidence But... His/her claims have been backed with hard evidence O_o The transcript of the call backs what the Whistleblower said and Rudy Giuliani has backed up a lot of other shit too. Really the only thing that hasn't been coroberated is there is a lot of "People in the Administration/intelligence commity keep being told to do to dumb/illegal things." and that's the small fry. Also keep in mind the full whistleblower complaint has not been released, only part of it and that's the part which deals with the Ukraine phone call. Giuliani has admitted publically that he asked Ukraine to look into digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son for months. Between May and August. This was before and then after Trump froze the military aid. Trump also freezing the military aid is not in dispute. And he has never expressed a valid reason for doing so. Which is a big deal you ignore. This is a big problem because Giuliani is not part of the US government so he should not be involved in foreign policy and this investigation did not go through the correct channels. It's shady illegal shit before you even get to the phone call. If Ukraine possesses evidence or can obtain evidence that Biden used tax money that benefited his family, then the President has every right to investigate. IF - so far there hasn't been evidence that Biden did any of that, so Trump doesn't have a right to investigate. It's also not true to begin with. The US president should not be the one calling for such investigations and if he is wanting one due to evidence he is aware of. He should pass it on to relevant channels. This is called the MLAT. Mutual legal assistance treaty. The US representative would talk to the Ukraine representative to show their evidence and get Ukraine to investigate it if warranted. The US president going to the Ukraine President and extorting him to do so with a personal lawyer who isn't even part of the government as a go-between, is absolutely illegal and idiotic. Even if somehow Biden Jr was corrupt and the Ukraine investigation discovered that which at this point feels like a pipe dream. Trump's actions are still wrong and illegal. He doesn't have "Every Right" to commit treason. He has every right to get relevant people to investigate via the MLAT. He didn't do that because he knows Biden didn't do shit. He just wanted Ukraine to put out some shit to make people pissed at Biden for 2020 --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:928387263] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Ruvan22 posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite><quote> What complaint and what transcripts? What are these other calls of treasonous behavior, and who has heard them? I've read the transcripts to the call to the Ukrainian President, and I didn't see any sort of illegal or nefarious activity anywhere in them.A random "whistleblower" saying things, isnt proof He needs to back it with hard evidence</quote> But... His/her claims have been backed with hard evidence O_o The transcript of the call backs what the Whistleblower said and Rudy Giuliani has backed up a lot of other shit too. Really the only thing that hasn't been coroberated is there is a lot of "People in the Administration/intelligence commity keep being told to do to dumb/illegal things." and that's the small fry. Also keep in mind the full whistleblower complaint has not been released, only part of it and that's the part which deals with the Ukraine phone call. Giuliani has admitted publically that he asked Ukraine to look into digging up dirt on Joe Biden and his son for months. Between May and August. This was before and then after Trump froze the military aid. Trump also freezing the military aid is not in dispute. And he has never expressed a valid reason for doing so. Which is a big deal you ignore. This is a big problem because Giuliani is not part of the US government so he should not be involved in foreign policy and this investigation did not go through the correct channels. It's shady illegal shit before you even get to the phone call. </quote> If Ukraine possesses evidence or can obtain evidence that Biden used tax money that benefited his family, then the President has every right to investigate. </quote> IF - so far there hasn't been evidence that Biden did any of that, so Trump doesn't have a right to investigate.</quote> It's also not true to begin with. The US president should not be the one calling for such investigations and if he is wanting one due to evidence he is aware of. He should pass it on to relevant channels. This is called the MLAT. Mutual legal assistance treaty. The US representative would talk to the Ukraine representative to show their evidence and get Ukraine to investigate it if warranted. The US president going to the Ukraine President and extorting him to do so with a personal lawyer who isn't even part of the government as a go-between, is absolutely illegal and idiotic. Even if somehow Biden Jr was corrupt and the Ukraine investigation discovered that which at this point feels like a pipe dream. Trump's actions are still wrong and illegal. He doesn't have "Every Right" to commit treason. He has every right to get relevant people to investigate via the MLAT. He didn't do that because he knows Biden didn't do shit. He just wanted Ukraine to put out some shit to make people pissed at Biden for 2020</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/05/19 9:06:31 PM #106:	The US president going to the Ukraine President and extorting him* to do so with a personal lawyer who isn't even part of the government as a go-between, is absolutely illegal and idiotic.* Good thing there isnt any proof of this. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928388646] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>The US president going to the Ukraine President and extorting him to do so with a personal lawyer who isn't even part of the government as a go-between, is absolutely illegal and idiotic. Good thing there isnt any proof of this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PleaseClap 10/05/19 9:11:54 PM #107:	UnfairRepresent posted... You did this in the other topic too. You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)" And it's bizarre. --- she/her https://imgur.com/AmWcJjM <cite>PleaseClap posted [p:928388800] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote><cite>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>You did this in the other topic too. You pick out 1 thing, ignoring everything else and then go "Well this one thing isn't illegal/suspicious" or "This 1 thing is hearsay (most things are hearsay)" And it's bizarre.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
The Admiral 10/05/19 9:13:37 PM #108:	We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!! --- - The Admiral <cite>The Admiral posted [p:928388854] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/05/19 9:23:32 PM #109:	UnfairRepresent posted... This is called the MLAT. Mutual legal assistance treaty. The US representative would talk to the Ukraine representative to show their evidence and get Ukraine to investigate it if warranted. Incorrect. Jesse Watters said it perfectly. I have found, from 1999 to 2000, a treaty with Ukraine signed by Bill Clinton on mutual legal assistance and criminal matters, which basically establishes a range of cooperation between the two governments of Ukraine and the United States about making testimony available, making people available, making documents and records available and assisting in the cooperation of mutual criminal matters, Watters said before making the point that if Biden is somehow immune, anyone could be immune by simply saying they are running for office. Under that then to your point about the Obama team and Hillary Clinton team under that same treaty asking for Ukraine help to investigate Donald Trump would fit underneath the same treaty, co-host Dana Perino asked. (RELATED: Chris Murphy On Ukraine Visit: Zelensky Did Not Make Any Connection Between Aid And Investigation Requests) Right, so if that is an investigation that is a counterintelligence investigation, that does not fall under criminal investigation, because thats what that was under Barack Obama, Watters explained. And, remember, there were no basis for those inquiries, either. If you are going to say that thats okay, then what Trump did is okay, too. https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/26/jesse-watters-juan-williams-treaty-ukraine/ --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928389185] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... <quote>This is called the MLAT. Mutual legal assistance treaty. The US representative would talk to the Ukraine representative to show their evidence and get Ukraine to investigate it if warranted. </quote> Incorrect. Jesse Watters said it perfectly. <quote>I have found, from 1999 to 2000, a treaty with Ukraine signed by Bill Clinton on mutual legal assistance and criminal matters, which basically establishes a range of cooperation between the two governments of Ukraine and the United States about making testimony available, making people available, making documents and records available and assisting in the cooperation of mutual criminal matters, Watters said before making the point that if Biden is somehow immune, anyone could be immune by simply saying they are running for office. Under that then to your point about the Obama team and Hillary Clinton team under that same treaty asking for Ukraine help to investigate Donald Trump would fit underneath the same treaty, co-host Dana Perino asked. (RELATED: Chris Murphy On Ukraine Visit: Zelensky Did Not Make Any Connection Between Aid And Investigation Requests) Right, so if that is an investigation that is a counterintelligence investigation, that does not fall under criminal investigation, because thats what that was under Barack Obama, Watters explained. And, remember, there were no basis for those inquiries, either. If you are going to say that thats okay, then what Trump did is okay, too.</quote> https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/26/jesse-watters-juan-williams-treaty-ukraine/</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 10/05/19 11:37:53 PM #110:	CloneTheHero posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Machete posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Can someone tell me the specific impeachable thing Trump supposedly has done? I have the Ukraine transcript call he made,right in front of me. I can't see a thing wrong with it. Lmao this is like saying "Can someone tell me the specific criminal act I've committed? I have the gun that I just shot and killed several innocent people with,right in front of me. I can't see a thing wrong with it." Is this a joke post bud? Honest question. I'm not going to answer it until after you've given UnfairRepresent an answer that he finds acceptable. machete and those of his ilk are incapable of answering that question. and if it came down to it i doubt theyd put their account on the line on whether trump gets impeached when its all said and done. "Look at me. I know how to shitpost in the most basic sense. If I stepped up my game by 9000%, I would still shitpost more obviously than the people I disagree with... If they even shitpost at all......." --- #TrampledTrump #LockTrumpUp <cite>Machete posted [p:928393623] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>CloneTheHero posted...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Can someone tell me the specific impeachable thing Trump supposedly has done? I have the Ukraine transcript call he made,right in front of me. I can't see a thing wrong with it.</quote> Lmao this is like saying "Can someone tell me the specific criminal act I've committed? I have the gun that I just shot and killed several innocent people with,right in front of me. I can't see a thing wrong with it."</quote> Is this a joke post bud? Honest question.</quote> I'm not going to answer it until after you've given UnfairRepresent an answer that he finds acceptable.</quote> machete and those of his ilk are incapable of answering that question. and if it came down to it i doubt theyd put their account on the line on whether trump gets impeached when its all said and done.</quote> "Look at me. I know how to shitpost in the most basic sense. If I stepped up my game by 9000%, I would still shitpost more obviously than the people I disagree with... If they even shitpost at all......."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Machete 10/05/19 11:40:41 PM #111:	The topic creator was his own topic star. --- #TraitorousTrump #LockTrumpUp <cite>Machete posted [p:928393718] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>The topic creator was his own topic star.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/06/19 3:59:46 AM #112:	Machete posted... The topic creator was his own topic star. I always am --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:928399959] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Machete posted...</cite> <quote>The topic creator was his own topic star.</quote> I always am</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Perascamin 10/06/19 4:41:03 AM #113:	It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics --- I've grown. <cite>Perascamin posted [p:928400525] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 10/06/19 12:33:28 PM #114:	The Admiral posted... We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!! No, they have been right all previous times, just as they are right this time. Trump doesn't go down not because they're wrong, but because useless, spineless Republicans wouldn't remove Trump from office even if he killed their mother. Which is why I think this whole impeachment thing is mostly a waste of time, energy and resources. On the other hand, there is a bit of an upside to all this I guess, that being that it reveals the 265th instance of Trump being an egotistical idiot who has absolutely no concept of separating his personal interests from affairs of state. As if any more were needed, right. It's funny when you think back to Clinton's impeachment and the outrage if they'd got even a whisper of the stuff Trump has done. Instead all they could get on him was skirt-chasing. Trump makes that look like so much more of a joke now. Except the joke's on the country. --- Hottest K-Pop Girl Group http://challonge.com/96st4ysk <cite>paerarru posted [p:928409665] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!!</quote> No, they have been right all previous times, just as they are right this time. Trump doesn't go down not because they're wrong, but because useless, spineless Republicans wouldn't remove Trump from office even if he killed their mother. Which is why I think this whole impeachment thing is mostly a waste of time, energy and resources. On the other hand, there is a bit of an upside to all this I guess, that being that it reveals the 265th instance of Trump being an egotistical idiot who has absolutely no concept of separating his personal interests from affairs of state. As if any more were needed, right. It's funny when you think back to Clinton's impeachment and the outrage if they'd got even a whisper of the stuff Trump has done. Instead all they could get on him was skirt-chasing. Trump makes that look like so much more of a joke now. Except the joke's on the country.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 10/06/19 12:34:12 PM #115:	Perascamin posted... It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics Shrug. "Meanwhile..." --- Hottest K-Pop Girl Group http://challonge.com/96st4ysk <cite>paerarru posted [p:928409691] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Perascamin posted...</cite> <quote>It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics </quote> Shrug. "Meanwhile..."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/07/19 8:50:10 AM #116:	paerarru posted... Perascamin posted... It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics Shrug. "Meanwhile..." At the Legion of Doom --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:928448647] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>paerarru posted...</cite> <quote>Perascamin posted...</cite> <quote>It's all probably smoke and mirrors anyways for secret government buddies to funnel money to each other and throw awesome parties at the taxpayers expense while they're too distracted by the charade-like soap opera that is American Politics </quote> Shrug. "Meanwhile..."</quote> At the Legion of Doom</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Caution998 10/07/19 9:16:50 AM #117:	Here's what a lot of people are forgetting about how justice works in our great country: We work off of the standard that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. What evidence do Jurors value the most? DNA evidence. Photographic evidence. Video evidence. Audio evidence. Those have got to be the top 4. Right now we've got a transcript released by Trump which the Democrats claim isn't the real "transcript" with the President of Ukraine. Right now we can say for certain: That Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to look into the matter of Joe Biden and his son when it comes to a matter of corruption. That much is 100% true. What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or was going to withhold money; to which the only evidence of those things are, apparently, according to these 2 whistle-blowers. One can make the argument that Trump was simply doing his due diligence in "draining the swamp" by exposing Biden and his son from this very corrupt business dealing they had going on. Biden on tape bragging how he got his son this spot on the UK seat and all the money... Now, what the Democrats really need is physical proof. They need to somehow acquire this other transcript that was supposedly archived elsewhere. Without that, they have ZERO chance of convincing Senate Republicans. In this country, we try not to commit someone as guilty until we have a large majority of proof. Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Remember: In any criminal case, it is never the defendant's duty to prove their innocence. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt. And in this case...In my view, so far, there is reasonable doubt because all we have is hearsay and we have what the official "transcript" of the phone call. And so...you can't make a judgement call on that thus far. That's my thoughts on the matter. --- https://youtu.be/sMIAnfTrMXo <cite>Caution998 posted [p:928449301] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Here's what a lot of people are forgetting about how justice works in our great country: We work off of the standard that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. What evidence do Jurors value the most? DNA evidence. Photographic evidence. Video evidence. Audio evidence. Those have got to be the top 4. Right now we've got a transcript released by Trump which the Democrats claim isn't the real "transcript" with the President of Ukraine. Right now we can say for certain: That Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to look into the matter of Joe Biden and his son when it comes to a matter of corruption. That much is 100% true. What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or was going to withhold money; to which the only evidence of those things are, apparently, according to these 2 whistle-blowers. One can make the argument that Trump was simply doing his due diligence in "draining the swamp" by exposing Biden and his son from this very corrupt business dealing they had going on. Biden on tape bragging how he got his son this spot on the UK seat and all the money... Now, what the Democrats really need is physical proof. They need to somehow acquire this other transcript that was supposedly archived elsewhere. Without that, they have ZERO chance of convincing Senate Republicans. In this country, we try not to commit someone as guilty until we have a large majority of proof. Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Remember: In any criminal case, it is never the defendant's duty to prove their innocence. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt. And in this case...In my view, so far, there is reasonable doubt because all we have is hearsay and we have what the official "transcript" of the phone call. And so...you can't make a judgement call on that thus far. That's my thoughts on the matter.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/07/19 9:22:05 AM #118:	Caution998 posted... Here's what a lot of people are forgetting about how justice works in our great country: We work off of the standard that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. What evidence do Jurors value the most? DNA evidence. Photographic evidence. Video evidence. Audio evidence. Those have got to be the top 4. Right now we've got a transcript released by Trump which the Democrats claim isn't the real "transcript" with the President of Ukraine. Right now we can say for certain: That Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to look into the matter of Joe Biden and his son when it comes to a matter of corruption. That much is 100% true. What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or was going to withhold money; to which the only evidence of those things are, apparently, according to these 2 whistle-blowers. One can make the argument that Trump was simply doing his due diligence in "draining the swamp" by exposing Biden and his son from this very corrupt business dealing they had going on. Biden on tape bragging how he got his son this spot on the UK seat and all the money... Now, what the Democrats really need is physical proof. They need to somehow acquire this other transcript that was supposedly archived elsewhere. Without that, they have ZERO chance of convincing Senate Republicans. In this country, we try not to commit someone as guilty until we have a large majority of proof. Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Remember: In any criminal case, it is never the defendant's duty to prove their innocence. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt. And in this case...In my view, so far, there is reasonable doubt because all we have is hearsay and we have what the official "transcript" of the phone call. And so...you can't make a judgement call on that thus far. That's my thoughts on the matter. A good post by Caution. Dang --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928449453] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>Here's what a lot of people are forgetting about how justice works in our great country: We work off of the standard that everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. What evidence do Jurors value the most? DNA evidence. Photographic evidence. Video evidence. Audio evidence. Those have got to be the top 4. Right now we've got a transcript released by Trump which the Democrats claim isn't the real "transcript" with the President of Ukraine. Right now we can say for certain: That Trump did ask the Ukrainian President to look into the matter of Joe Biden and his son when it comes to a matter of corruption. That much is 100% true. What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or was going to withhold money; to which the only evidence of those things are, apparently, according to these 2 whistle-blowers. One can make the argument that Trump was simply doing his due diligence in "draining the swamp" by exposing Biden and his son from this very corrupt business dealing they had going on. Biden on tape bragging how he got his son this spot on the UK seat and all the money... Now, what the Democrats really need is physical proof. They need to somehow acquire this other transcript that was supposedly archived elsewhere. Without that, they have ZERO chance of convincing Senate Republicans. In this country, we try not to commit someone as guilty until we have a large majority of proof. Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Remember: In any criminal case, it is never the defendant's duty to prove their innocence. All they have to do is create reasonable doubt. And in this case...In my view, so far, there is reasonable doubt because all we have is hearsay and we have what the official "transcript" of the phone call. And so...you can't make a judgement call on that thus far. That's my thoughts on the matter.</quote> A good post by Caution. Dang</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Thompson 10/07/19 9:25:13 AM #119:	Caution998 posted... Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Err... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A second whistleblower has come forward with first-hand knowledge of President Donald Trumps attempts to get the Ukrainian president to investigate a political rival, lawyers for the official said on Sunday. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-lawyer-idUSKCN1WL09J --- Sigs are rather pointless, except if it's to showcase animation and images. <cite>Thompson posted [p:928449548] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened.</quote> Err... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A second whistleblower has come forward with first-hand knowledge of President Donald Trumps attempts to get the Ukrainian president to investigate a political rival, lawyers for the official said on Sunday. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-lawyer-idUSKCN1WL09J</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Caution998 10/07/19 9:28:44 AM #120:	Well I stand corrected. This second whistle-blower claims to have first hand knowledge. To me, it's still hearsay until we get some concrete proof. I will tell you that if they're able to find an alternative transcript, that is obviously official, even I will admit it's time. --- https://youtu.be/sMIAnfTrMXo <cite>Caution998 posted [p:928449647] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Well I stand corrected. This second whistle-blower claims to have first hand knowledge. To me, it's still hearsay until we get some concrete proof. I will tell you that if they're able to find an alternative transcript, that is obviously official, even I will admit it's time.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/07/19 9:29:47 AM #121:	Thompson posted... Caution998 posted... Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened. Err... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A second whistleblower has come forward with first-hand knowledge of President Donald Trumps attempts to get the Ukrainian president to investigate a political rival, lawyers for the official said on Sunday. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-lawyer-idUSKCN1WL09J So where's the "first hand knowledge" at? Oh --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928449673] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Thompson posted...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>Right now, we've got some whistle-blowers who could have third or second hand knowledge of something that may or may not have happened.</quote> Err... WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A second whistleblower has come forward with first-hand knowledge of President Donald Trumps attempts to get the Ukrainian president to investigate a political rival, lawyers for the official said on Sunday. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-lawyer-idUSKCN1WL09J</quote> So where's the "first hand knowledge" at? Oh</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/07/19 9:43:31 AM #122:	I dont get the "it's not first hand " complaint when the info released by the Trump Administration matches the account O_o I dont think you get it either. It's just easier to evade with that than call a spade a spade and be disgusted at Trump --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:928450066] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>I dont get the "it's not first hand " complaint when the info released by the Trump Administration matches the account O_o I dont think you get it either. It's just easier to evade with that than call a spade a spade and be disgusted at Trump</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/07/19 9:45:42 AM #123:	Who are you even talking to --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928450126] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Who are you even talking to</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bishop9800 10/07/19 1:06:16 PM #124:	karlpilkington4 posted... Who are you even talking to He's talking to you. --- There are enough attention whores on CE as it is. <cite>Bishop9800 posted [p:928457015] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Who are you even talking to</quote> He's talking to you.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChrisTaka 10/07/19 2:59:38 PM #125:	Bishop9800 posted... karlpilkington4 posted... Who are you even talking to He's talking to you. oof --- Knowledge is having the right answer. Intelligence is asking the right question <cite>ChrisTaka posted [p:928461546] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Bishop9800 posted...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Who are you even talking to</quote> He's talking to you.</quote> oof</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/09/19 3:45:48 AM #126:	Caution998 posted... What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! https://imgtc.com/i/bHqCLJF.png https://i.imgtc.com/YnvkpvU.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:928533726] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or </quote> erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
evil_zombie11 10/09/19 3:49:24 AM #127:	The Admiral posted... We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!! It's literally this. We're tired. --- Yo wtf Probably lifting or running... <cite>evil_zombie11 posted [p:928533787] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>The Admiral posted...</cite> <quote>We've been wrong the previous 264 times, but this time Trump is going down boys!!</quote> It's literally this. We're tired. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Caution998 10/09/19 9:33:04 AM #128:	UnfairRepresent posted... Caution998 posted... What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript Yes. But not a "you better do this for me or else..." thing which is where the problem would be. --- https://youtu.be/sMIAnfTrMXo <cite>Caution998 posted [p:928539738] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or </quote> erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript</quote> Yes. But not a "you better do this for me or else..." thing which is where the problem would be.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
karlpilkington4 10/09/19 9:34:56 AM #129:	Caution998 posted... UnfairRepresent posted... Caution998 posted... What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript Yes. But not a "you better do this for me or else..." thing which is where the problem would be. Apparently people dont realize that asking for favors isnt illegal. --- Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!" <cite>karlpilkington4 posted [p:928539780] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted...</cite> <quote>Caution998 posted...</cite> <quote>What the Democrats are arguing is that he asked him for some kind of favor or </quote> erm..Trump literally asked him for a favor, it's in the transcript</quote> Yes. But not a "you better do this for me or else..." thing which is where the problem would be.</quote> Apparently people dont realize that asking for favors isnt illegal.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
CountDog 10/09/19 9:38:22 AM #130:	In impeaching hardly means a thing. Scrapping some skin fragments off a cist ain't gonna take care of it. --- http://kinomania.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/gran-torino-clint-eastwood.jpg <cite>CountDog posted [p:928539872] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>In impeaching hardly means a thing. Scrapping some skin fragments off a cist ain't gonna take care of it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
paerarru 10/09/19 3:26:42 PM #131:	karlpilkington4 posted... Apparently people dont realize that asking for favors isnt illegal. And apparently people don't realize that impeaching a president isn't about charging them with a crime. You could charge a president with a crime, and convict them and they still would be president. They might then be impeached for being charged and actually convicted of a crime, but even then you would still have to vote on whether to remove them from office or not (also the president might simply be removed from office on account of them not being able to do their duties, without having to go through the impeachment process, if they have to say go to jail). The point is being impeached and then removed from office is a completely different and separate process from being charged with a crime and then convicted. So yeah, Trump doesn't need to have done anything illegal to be impeached, and possibly removed from office. --- Hottest K-Pop Girl Group http://challonge.com/96st4ysk <cite>paerarru posted [p:928553226] in " I w... [t:78063082]...</cite> <quote>karlpilkington4 posted...</cite> <quote>Apparently people dont realize that asking for favors isnt illegal.</quote> And apparently people don't realize that impeaching a president isn't about charging them with a crime. You could charge a president with a crime, and convict them and they still would be president. They might then be impeached for being charged and actually convicted of a crime, but even then you would still have to vote on whether to remove them from office or not (also the president might simply be removed from office on account of them not being able to do their duties, without having to go through the impeachment process, if they have to say go to jail). The point is being impeached and then removed from office is a completely different and separate process from being charged with a crime and then convicted. So yeah, Trump doesn't need to have done anything illegal to be impeached, and possibly removed from office.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3

Current Events > " I will be impeached, Democrats have the votes'' - DonaldTrump. (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > " I will be impeached, Democrats have the votes'' - DonaldTrump.