VP Biden’s quid pro quo threat to Ukraine...

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,587
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Speaking of conflicts of interest, outside of Hillary and the Clinton Foundation and the dossier- I have always wondered what "legal services" Obama for America (oxymoron) was paying Perkins Coie for in 2016 to the tune of over $800,000. Since assuming the worst appears to be part of the JTF game, I am going to go ahead and assume that Perkins Coie was requiring a little extra cash for the Rrrrrrrrrrrrussian dossier work they were laundering.
The reason you've "always wondered' is because when I explained it to you, you ignored it.

http://www.forums.gopherhole.com/boards/showthread.php?90134-All-Things-Impeachment-Inquiry&p=1800510#post1800510

 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
I don’t see this as a conflict of interest.

Of course, you think Hillary paying her Attorneys to hire Fusion-GPS to hire Christopher Steele to hire Russians is deconflicting. It’s not.

Giuliani was in a unique position to do both roles. He had insight into Ukraine’s corruption b/c of his role as Trump’s investigative attorney. Zelensky brought up Giuliani as someone they could work with on the July 25th call. In the end, all of Giuliani’s work went through Volker to other US diplomats to the State Dept. Openly and with all the appropriate approval, except the diplomats that weren’t doing their job.

There is no reason for Bidens conflict of interest except for Hunter Biden’s financial gain and his ability to provide ‘influence’ with the US government in the Obama Administration.

And, it wasn’t “openly”. Joe Biden says he didn’t even know. Hahahahaha
:rolleyes: Yeah Rudy's a hero and his role in this is totally legit.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
When you can tell me what Giuliani and/or Trump did that was illegal without investigating.

It’s not just sleazy and cushy. It’s a conflict of interest that was easily recognizable.

I already told you what laws they may have violated, but I’ll repeat them. Corrupt Foreign Practices Act, extortion and bribery, and Honest Services Fraud.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Corrupt_Practices_Act
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45479.pdf
And your evidence that he broke any of these laws is....?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
And your evidence that he broke any of these laws is....?
I didn’t say he broke any laws? I said it needs investigation and these are laws that may have been violated.

Why is it that you can’t name any laws that Giuliani broke, but you are really concerned? And yet, had no concern about Sidney Blumenthal’s shadow diplomacy when Hillary was SoS, and no criminal concern about the Bidens.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
I didn’t say he broke any laws? I said it needs investigation and these are laws that may have been violated.

Why is it that you can’t name any laws that Giuliani broke, but you are really concerned? And yet, had no concern about Sidney Blumenthal’s shadow diplomacy when Hillary was SoS, and no criminal concern about the Bidens.
Did I say Guiliani broke any laws? I mean he likely did, given his criminal Ukrainian pals, but I we haven't seen evidence of that yet.

Trump abused the power of his office by attempting to extort Ukraine by withholding their aid unless they gave him political dirt. But you know this.

You can yeah but Hillary all you want.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
Did I say Guiliani broke any laws? I mean he likely did, given his criminal Ukrainian pals, but I we haven't seen evidence of that yet.

Trump abused the power of his office by attempting to extort Ukraine by withholding their aid unless they gave him political dirt. But you know this.

You can yeah but Hillary all you want.
Schiffshow talking point. Subjective, Trump hating viewpoint.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
36,998
Reaction score
220
Points
63
Schiffshow talking point. Subjective, Trump hating viewpoint.
Fiona Hill's testimony is pretty ugly for the Dems. She has to admit that Victoria Nuland of the Obama administration was involved in doing some damage in manipulating the Ukrainian election...

Then Nuland also was examined on her relationship with Christopher Steele and she was caught trying to pass a few whoppers there. She did have to admit thought that it was improper collusion between Hillary's campaign and Steele. Ouch.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,587
Reaction score
61
Points
48
Fiona Hill's testimony is pretty ugly for the Dems. She has to admit that Victoria Nuland of the Obama administration was involved in doing some damage in manipulating the Ukrainian election...

Then Nuland also was examined on her relationship with Christopher Steele and she was caught trying to pass a few whoppers there. She did have to admit thought that it was improper collusion between Hillary's campaign and Steele. Ouch.
Haha, yes, this new testimony will be QUITE damaging as it relates to a phone call that's already on YouTube.

Here's Hill on Nuland.



So by "relationship" you mean, "had someone talk to Steele." Nuland FWIW actually worked for Cheney.

Also:





Anyway, good to hear that you're so supportive of Fiona Hill's testimony.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
It’s easy when the facts favor my position.
The facts don't have favor you or the R's which is why they're screaming about process, "storming the SCIF" and trying to make the entire thing into a circus to distract from the facts.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
The facts don't have favor you or the R's which is why they're screaming about process, "storming the SCIF" and trying to make the entire thing into a circus to distract from the facts.
If this is the circus, the Democrats are the clowns.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
15,050
Reaction score
207
Points
63
It’s easy when the facts favor my position.
If "facts" favored your position, do you honestly believe the Trumpies wouldn't be trying so damn hard to thwart all of this? Or that the Republicans would try 10 or so different defenses, many of which conflict, many of which are flat out false and comical, and none of which ever solidify? You cannot be serious.

Honestly, you're far worse than the folks who stuck by OJ, damn be all that evidence. In that case, they only had to dispute about a dozen or so pieces of strong evidence against OJ; here you are trying to dispute every piece of thousands upon thousands of strong, often obvious pieces of evidence, all of which fit together into a damn near perfectly assembled puzzle. At what point do you get honest with yourself and relent, or are you just going to cover yourself up in your blanket of lies and go down with the ship?
 
Last edited:

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
If "facts" favored your position, do you honestly believe the Trumpies wouldn't be trying so damn hard to thwart all of this? Or that the Republicans would try 10 or so different defenses, many of which conflict, many of which are flat out false and comical, and none of which ever solidify? You cannot be serious.

Honestly, you're far worse than the folks who stuck by OJ, damn be all that evidence. In that case, they only had to dispute about a dozen or so pieces of strong evidence against OJ; here you are trying to dispute every piece of thousands upon thousands of strong, often obvious pieces of evidence, all of which fit together into a damn near perfectly assembled puzzle. At what point do you get honest with yourself and relent, or are you just going to cover yourself up in your blanket of lies and go down with the ship?
We have to believe that nearly a dozen career government and military staff with no motive to lie are ALL lying and the man who's told 12,000 lies and counting is telling the truth. It's beyond absurd.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
36,998
Reaction score
220
Points
63
We have to believe that nearly a dozen career government and military staff with no motive to lie are ALL lying and the man who's told 12,000 lies and counting is telling the truth. It's beyond absurd.
It is all opinion based. The transcript is there to read. There was nothing wrong. Many have opinions about whether they liked it or not. A lot of them are probably a lot like you- they cannot see anything good in anything Trump does. So like you they resort to lying and exaggeration. You also have no idea what their motives might be.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
It is all opinion based. The transcript is there to read. There was nothing wrong. Many have opinions about whether they liked it or not. A lot of them are probably a lot like you- they cannot see anything good in anything Trump does. So like you they resort to lying and exaggeration. You also have no idea what their motives might be.
This
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,576
Reaction score
73
Points
48
Evidence is fact based, idiot.

It is all opinion based. The transcript is there to read. There was nothing wrong. Many have opinions about whether they liked it or not. A lot of them are probably a lot like you- they cannot see anything good in anything Trump does. So like you they resort to lying and exaggeration. You also have no idea what their motives might be.
That was not a transcript, it was notes, and made up notes at that. The WH even admitted that the notes were drafted after the meeting by several days. There is no need for these career civil servants to get up one morning and start a conspiracy and have motive to do so. What these people did is fairly simple. In their good conscience, they heard the President, were alarmed at his overt takedown of both policy and law and they properly called on others to sound the alarm. And, they were not motivated by anything other than respect for the law and the history of respecting the rule of law. I don't think it is very hard to grasp when you see people everyday go to work as civil servants to follow the law. People have professional standards and try to maintain those over a course of a career are going to do the right thing. It is as American as apple pie. It is why we admire the phrase "to form a more perfect union", which is an action statement, not a resolved goal. It is why we teach Sunday School, have a Boy Scout pledge, have professional associations with codes of conduct and teach law in civics classes across America. Americans have instilled values of nation and government. Now, I know you hate that government and the people it represents, but honestly, how hard is it for you to see their statements as evidence and not conspiracy to take poor, poor, cheating Don Trump down? DJT is a fraud who loves to create conspiracy to cover his tracks and cause confusion in the unschooled.

By the way, what is your degree in and what professional code do you live by?
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
That you agree with something that completely idiotic and false perfectly exemplifies your clownishness.
When Schiffshow talks, you’re probably in total agreement with everything he says. Partisan hack.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
It is all opinion based. The transcript is there to read. There was nothing wrong. Many have opinions about whether they liked it or not. A lot of them are probably a lot like you- they cannot see anything good in anything Trump does. So like you they resort to lying and exaggeration. You also have no idea what their motives might be.
It's far more than one phone call memo you and you know it. The memo is damning. Him standing on the front lawn and asking Ukraine and China to investigate is damning. And the testimony of multiple officials is damning. You can either believe that mountain of evidence, or you can believe the guy who lies a dozen times per day.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,301
Reaction score
44
Points
48
It's far more than one phone call memo you and you know it. The memo is damning. Him standing on the front lawn and asking Ukraine and China to investigate is damning. And the testimony of multiple officials is damning. You can either believe that mountain of evidence, or you can believe the guy who lies a dozen times per day.
Evidence? In a court of law, these officials’ testimony would be considered hearsay as it relates to Trump and wouldn’t be allowed. Trump has been denied rights of representation in the hearings, calling his witnesses, and Schiffshow has prevented Republican congressmen from answering some questions.

You want to impeach a President on a lower standard than is permitted by a court of law. It’s a kangaroo court, but as long as it’s a kangaroo court that impeaches Trump, you’re all for it.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
36,998
Reaction score
220
Points
63
It's far more than one phone call memo you and you know it. The memo is damning. Him standing on the front lawn and asking Ukraine and China to investigate is damning. And the testimony of multiple officials is damning. You can either believe that mountain of evidence, or you can believe the guy who lies a dozen times per day.
That's a mountain of political opinions you are talking about. Not evidence of a crime or abuse of power or anything close. This is a political fight. It's one that is normally taken to the people every 4 years. But the Dems know that won't work, so they are attempting a political coup.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
37,968
Reaction score
358
Points
83
Evidence? In a court of law, these officials’ testimony would be considered hearsay as it relates to Trump and wouldn’t be allowed. Trump has been denied rights of representation in the hearings, calling his witnesses, and Schiffshow has prevented Republican congressmen from answering some questions.

You want to impeach a President on a lower standard than is permitted by a court of law. It’s a kangaroo court, but as long as it’s a kangaroo court that impeaches Trump, you’re all for it.
It's not a court of law at all and nothing you're whining about applies. Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial. We are now at the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings and no the accused don't get to call witnesses at that point in the process. Trump abused the power of the Presidency to attempt to extort a foreign country to help him politically. It's very impeachable whether or not it's illegal. Need we play you Little Lindsey Graham's comments on impeachment again?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
36,998
Reaction score
220
Points
63
It's not a court of law at all and nothing you're whining about applies. Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial. We are now at the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings and no the accused don't get to call witnesses at that point in the process. Trump abused the power of the Presidency to attempt to extort a foreign country to help him politically. It's very impeachable whether or not it's illegal. Need we play you Little Lindsey Graham's comments on impeachment again?
No we are not at the "equivalent of grand jury proceedings". Grand jury proceedings are secret and are done to seek justice not a political result. This is done to seek a political result.

What is happening right now is Democrats abusing their power. The people will make them pay for this sham. Little Lindsay Graham says that this is such a sham that the Senate will not even consider this. It will be hello and goodbye in the Senate if it continues in the manner. Well...maybe they will make Schiff, President Swellwell and the Biden family testify before the books are quickly closed.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
It's not a court of law at all and nothing you're whining about applies. Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial. We are now at the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings and no the accused don't get to call witnesses at that point in the process. Trump abused the power of the Presidency to attempt to extort a foreign country to help him politically. It's very impeachable whether or not it's illegal. Need we play you Little Lindsey Graham's comments on impeachment again?
The fact that zero house Rs, and not even a unanimous number of house Dems, voted to go forward with this is very bad for you. Sure, almost anything is impeachABLE. But Trump is not going to be impeached over this. You can poo poo the "whining" about the process all you want. But a bad process is going to lead to bad results for you. You can cry all day, but without an additional huge bombshell, this goes nowhere. In your bubble, I'm sure impeachment seems certain, and that's sad.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
36,998
Reaction score
220
Points
63
The fact that zero house Rs, and not even a unanimous number of house Dems, voted to go forward with this is very bad for you. Sure, almost anything is impeachABLE. But Trump is not going to be impeached over this. You can poo poo the "whining" about the process all you want. But a bad process is going to lead to bad results for you. You can cry all day, but without an additional huge bombshell, this goes nowhere. In your bubble, I'm sure impeachment seems certain, and that's sad.
I think he might get impeached. The Dems might really be that stupid. But he's not going to get removed with what is presently known. The Dems feel desperate enough that they think their best shot is to kangeroo court impeach him so that they can say to stupid people..."Trump was impeached"...it's like an exercise in branding. As far as the popularity of the move, it is already losing steam so they will need to do this in a hurry. Trump seems excited about letting this second transcript out so I don't think it is going to be helpful to the Dems. Obviously the fake WB is a total mess. Schiff is wishing he had picked someone else at this point.... :)
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,789
Reaction score
123
Points
63
I think he might get impeached. The Dems might really be that stupid. But he's not going to get removed with what is presently known. The Dems feel desperate enough that they think their best shot is to kangeroo court impeach him so that they can say to stupid people..."Trump was impeached"...it's like an exercise in branding. As far as the popularity of the move, it is already losing steam so they will need to do this in a hurry. Trump seems excited about letting this second transcript out so I don't think it is going to be helpful to the Dems. Obviously the fake WB is a total mess. Schiff is wishing he had picked someone else at this point.... :)
Yes, I meant removed. I hope they do impeach him. It might make them feel better and then we can all move on.
 
Top Bottom