This ought to be interesting
- Thread starter Bruce1
- Start date
You infrequently have demonstrated the ability to differentiate between truth.....and what you would PREFER to be the truth.
I don't use " lefty" sources, here...but, of course, you wouldn't have the slightest idea whether or not I do or don't...
You never bother to check sources to begin with..
And you know it...
Dumbest and most delusional poster on the board spouts nonsense once again. You don’t have the first freaking clue what factual information is. You post easily debunked bs all the time.
I have said from the beginning that I would love to hear the phone call and make my own determination on what was meant/implied/asked for.
This is a complete clown show. From closed door hearings that last all day that get a few selected leaked paragraphs/texts from them, to Schiff's parody, to Schiff foreshadwing the WB complaints the month of August in tweets even though he had no contact, to Republicans not allowed witnesses or able to asked certain questions. Not to mention Trump is facing impeachment for the same thing Democrats did and nobody cared. Honestly, I do not get the issue behind the US Govt demanding that foreign countries that receive aid clean up corruption, make steps toward human rights, etc. Also, have no idea why RudyG got involved, why Trump did not just come out publicly and say this is what I am investigating and why, or why it is so hard to meet these Ukranian leaders.
Proven true? OK-I would just like to remind you that you accuse of others of making stuff up and being delusional. Again, perfect example, of projection.
There’s a lot wrong in the post. For one thing Trump wasn’t asking Ukraine to clean up corruption or do anything with human rights. He wanted them to make a public statement that Biden would be investigated. Just make a public statement and let the right wing propaganda machine do the rest. Trump didn’t say one word about corruption, it was all about his personal wants and hurting a political opponent. That’s not what Democrats did, so that accusation is also false.
I would 'educate' myself about them if Schiff did not limit and disallow questioning, or did not choose to release just a handful of sentences from 12 hours of testimony. You are confusing 'education' with brainwashing and/or pushing an agenda.
The phone call, the text messages, the witness testimony, they admitted that they were hiding calls on the server. Yes, what the whistleblower report says has been proven true.
Maybe you should read it. Link below. An informed opinion will be so much better than what you’ve posted.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/09/26/us/politics/whistle-blower-complaint.html
Right. He wanted the to cleanup corruption, investigate JBiden, all synonyms.
He didn’t say one thing about corruption. All he wanted was to get Biden because he knew he was a political threat.
Plenty of people have said that was what Trump stated and was after. Just because the NTY, NYmag, disagrees, and Schiff does not want to interview them, does not make it delusional or non factual. There were 3-4 other people that sat in on the phone call with that army Colonel-none of them had an issue with the call that he did. All factual.
Perhaps not using the term whistleblower or the name Trump will help the Trump supporters follow what is being said.
If your worst enemy calls you and says your house is on fire. Your wife then calls and says that your worst enemy called her at her job and told her the house was on fire and she called the fire department and the firemen are on her business phone explaining the fire is nearly under control.
When you arrive at home you see that your house has been damaged by fire. Under your theory there is no reason for you to accept that there was a fire because the guy who called you and your wife was your worst enemy and shouldn't be believed notwithstanding the other evidence.
If your worst enemy calls you and says your house is on fire. Your wife then calls and says that your worst enemy called her at her job and told her the house was on fire and she called the fire department and the firemen are on her business phone explaining the fire is nearly under control.
When you arrive at home you see that your house has been damaged by fire. Under your theory there is no reason for you to accept that there was a fire because the guy who called you and your wife was your worst enemy and shouldn't be believed notwithstanding the other evidence.
1) EVERYTHING that counts in the House's final determination of whether to bring Articles will be open to public viewing, in the very near future.
2) The W.B. was just that. Someone who blew a whistle - that initiated the process whereupon MANY credible witnesses started lining up to give sworn depositions and testimony. Apparently you think that the W.B. remains an important part of the process, going forward. He/She's not. Got it ?? Why don't you pretend that there never WAS a W.B. ??? Then you won't be as hopelessly confused about its importance !!
I work for a federal agency. I see my boss doing something illegal. I call the OIG and tell them what I'm witnessing . The OIG comes in and starts an investigation, starts asking questions. My boss calls a meeting the next day and asks everyone " who is the person that ratted me out, I want to know the identity of this rat." Now the butt kissers in the office think that the rat should have enough guts to admit that I am the rat because they want trash me in front of the boss. The boss wants to know who I am so he can harrass me until I quit. Hopefully the OIG doesn't tell the boss who ratted him out.
Get it?
Get it?
How many times did Trump mention cleaning up corruption in the perfect phone call? Did he mention Biden?
lol. I certainly would not have figured you would stand up and be counted with the other headline readers here. You gonna do a Lindsey Graham and refuse to read the transcripts over a process argument?
Why don't you tell me the article of the Constitution the dems are violating in this process? And as I've heard somewhere, elections have consequences.
The only questioning we know was disallowed was when the pubs were trying to get Vindman to talk about the identity of the WB.
The "sentences" you refer to all paint the same picture as the WB.
Brainwashing? You mean like when the most powerful man in the world lies to the citizens every day on social media?
A president would lie?
You think Zelensky could expect more military aid in the future from Trump if he publicly said the aid was contingent on investigating Biden? Does it benefit him more to deny the connection or say it happened?
The man is literally trying to save his country. He's not going to say anything that might risk any future military assistance from us.
The dems can expect no help in the impeachment process from Ukraine. They want to stay the hell out of this.
You don’t get called in to testify when you’re the one uninvolved bystander out of a large group of bystanders who happens to call 911 when a crime is in progress.
This really is a simple concept. It’s not surprising the people on here who can’t seem to grasp the whistleblower’s irrelevance at this point.
Maybe, or a person does simply present themselves as stupid and the word is properly used.
That's really funny since Hillary lost 3 years ago and you and your pals still can't come to grips with it.
Seriously do you ever string all of the worthless tripe you post together and read it?Just once? You go off on anyone that dares disagree with you about doing exactly what you do every time you post.
Hell, you or Indy could be whistleblowers. But we wouldn't believe either one of you.
Rather doubt you'll get much rebuttal from 97 after dropping the above A-bomb on him. Thought he was a little more astute than that.
Last edited:
(Who's "we " ??)
If Indy or I were whistleblowers, we wouldn't be trying to point out issues regarding Washington officeholders....we'd be trying to outline your behavior issues with local Mental Health Officials, regarding your possible involuntary commitment.....
You don't know what to say because you can't handle the truth. Every board needs a buffoon and this one has you and 35.
Seriously, you think the accusation against the standing president is handled in the same terms as a robbery? I'm going to take the other side on this.
He/she didn’t make an accusation. He filed a report. That report has now been corroborated by multiple people who were actually involved and is being investigated. An accusation will be made by the House.
Your idiotic argument amounts to: “Be a MAN. Stand up to the PRESIDENT face to face!”
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see all the attention being thrown towards getting the whistleblower to step forward is a red herring. It’s also completely unethical, but that’s par for the course with this administration, which uses simple third grade bullying tactics to try and get what it wants at every turn.
I fully expect someone to hold their breath and threaten to run away during the coming impeachment hearings.
Last edited:
That wasn't the question.
The question was, "When Zelensky was asked whether he felt he was in a QPQ situation with President Trump in regarding to funding for the Ukraine".
Zelensky said "No".
Again, do you believe Zelensky really feels that way or that he's lying? Because if you think he's lying, then you're calling him a liar for not telling the truth.
Which is it?
Attorneys for whistleblower issued a “cease and desist” order to White House.
Can there not be a third option? Is it possible that he was given bad information by his aides? Gulliani and the Ukrainian aides might have been working all of this in the background without Donald or Zelenski knowing a thing. Yes, it is doubtful, but not impossible.
Remember when we went to war with Iraq because of WMD's? Was George W. Bush lying, or did he just trust the 20 specialists in the room who were trying to convince him that those trailers in the desert were actual chemical weapons labs.
Leaders trust the people in their administration to do their jobs. That doesn't mean they can't be fooled.
All that Schiff has released is strictly hearsay. The House has the power to set the rules so there is no way that both sides of the argument will be heard. They say they have the votes for impeachment so I say go ahead and impeach Trump. Now, it appears they are just dragging it out so that they can continue to release selective newsbites in an effort to gradually wear down the American people for the election.
Next the Senate can have a real trial with witnesses from both sides who can be cross examined. That is the only way to get even close to the truth. It seems obvious at this point that Trump haters believe any news that supports their views and vice versa so let’s have a real trial.
Next the Senate can have a real trial with witnesses from both sides who can be cross examined. That is the only way to get even close to the truth. It seems obvious at this point that Trump haters believe any news that supports their views and vice versa so let’s have a real trial.
There are far more clowns in RED stripes, than in blue, at this particular circus ....
Including a source of the usual misinformation available for viewing, here...
Last edited:
Zelensky was put in an untenable position when asked if he felt like he was in a QPQ situation.
There was a price to pay for EITHER answer. And you know it.
For now......we'll just have to wait for possible future developments.
All that Schiff has shown to date is several people quoting hearsay. The Dems and their media have jumped on the bandwagon. Hearsay is not proof of anything. That said I say if Schiff has the votes, go ahead and impeach Trump instead of parading more witnesses with second hand hearsay.
Next, I would like to see the Senate have a real trial where witnesses are called and cross examinations occur to get at the truth.
Next, I would like to see the Senate have a real trial where witnesses are called and cross examinations occur to get at the truth.
Last edited:
