President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

I can't tell if you're taking the piss or if you're really that credulous.

Oh come on, mcmoustache, have you forgotten how when I gave you a thorough reply to your post about the call, going through all the reasons why I believe Trump said nothing inappropriate on the call, that you just replied with:

mcmoustache wrote: »

You can overly complicate this all you like...

And so give the 'I can't tell' stuff a rest, there's been zero ambiguity in my posts on the topic.

Now if you want go back to the post you swerved, and actually address the points I made, that would be sweet.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Zelensky camp worried about Trump pressure long before the call:

"three anonymous sources..."

Sure, Jan.

Biden made the remarks way back in 2018 and no investigation started then? He said it publicly. Boasted even.

Different regime in Ukraine. The last one could barely get a meeting with Trump. So now they have a new guy who seems to want to dispel corruption from the country. Perfect time to raise some outstanding issues regarding corruption.

If he was running against Cheney in the 2012 election, it's very likely and in fact even expected he would have been the subject of an impeachment process.

Baloney. The mainstream media would have lauded him for looking into the possible corruption of a crooked republican.

Outlaw Pete

Seems Taylor had a dog in the race:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/impeachment-witness-bill-taylor-led-ukraine-delegation-for-group-advised-by-hunter-biden/

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seems Taylor had a dog in the race:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/10/28/impeachment-witness-bill-taylor-led-ukraine-delegation-for-group-advised-by-hunter-biden/

Breitbart? Really??

Spencerfreeman

duploelabs wrote: »

Breitbart? Really??

Not able to judge the information for yourself? Just attack the source. Why don't you proffer your opinion on the information within rather than performing a baby like attack on the source.
Really.

Igotadose

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Not able to judge the information for yourself? Just attack the source. Why don't you proffer your opinion on the information within rather than performing a baby like attack on the source.
Really.

Well, Breitbart is a pack of lies pretending to be a news source. And, per the forum rules, of course you're going to do more than dump links, like maybe tell us what the article said?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Not able to judge the information for yourself? Just attack the source. Why don't you proffer your opinion on the information within rather than performing a baby like attack on the source.
Really.

The source speaks for itself: a word salad where they were quick to try and implicate George Soros in yet another global conspiracy

Eric Cartman

Overheal wrote: »

The source speaks for itself: a word salad where they were quick to try and implicate George Soros in yet another global conspiracy

just like you constantly implicate the koch brothers as being behind other conspiracies.

Spencerfreeman

duploelabs wrote: »

Breitbart? Really??

Maybe you didn't like this part?
If you have actually bothered to read it that is.

"Still, Taylor conceded that there was no quid pro quo.

“Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelensky and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelensky did not ‘clear things up’ in public, we could be at a ‘stalemate.’ I understood ‘stalemate to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance,” Taylor testified."

Taylor was wrong in his assessment of 'stalemate'.

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

just like you constantly implicate the koch brothers as being behind other conspiracies.

Where?

Eric Cartman

duploelabs wrote: »

Where?

off the top of my head - Paul ryan getting money , Carly fiorina being their candidate, the keystone XL pipeline.

Theyre the liberal boogeyman just as much as soros is the conservative one.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

just like you constantly implicate the koch brothers as being behind other conspiracies.

:rolleyes: yes the Kochs are behind all of this! Why didn’t I see it before?

Don’t be so derp. What’s this “constantly” you speak of anyway? I’m sure I’ve mentioned the Kochs in my post history, nowhere on this thread and not any time recently. but what other conspiracies are you detailing this thread to say I am guilty of constantly implicating them in? lol

duploelabs

Eric Cartman wrote: »

off the top of my head - Paul ryan getting money , Carly fiorina being their candidate, the keystone XL pipeline.

Theyre the liberal boogeyman just as much as soros is the conservative one.

That's not what I asked, I said where?, in reference to Overheal's blaming the Koch brothers

Eric Cartman

duploelabs wrote: »

That's not what I asked, I said where?, in reference to Overheal's blaming the Koch brothers

if you do a search for posts by overheal and the word koch you get 2 pages of results actually, all the ones I mentioned are in there, plus more.

Spencerfreeman

Igotadose wrote: »

Well, Breitbart is a pack of lies pretending to be a news source. And, per the forum rules, of course you're going to do more than dump links, like maybe tell us what the article said?

I have never dumped links.

Overheal

Eric Cartman wrote: »

off the top of my head - Paul ryan getting money , Carly fiorina being their candidate, the keystone XL pipeline.

Theyre the liberal boogeyman just as much as soros is the conservative one.

Oh, you mean when I mentioned Kochs in direct contradiction to moronic posters peddling Soros conspiracies because of his campaign contributions as well?

You may have saw my posts but you clearly didn’t understand them.

Outlaw Pete

I see Bill Taylor has been quite pally with Sen. Chris Murphy recently:


https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1186695819057086465


That would be the same Sen Chris Murphy who recently met with Zelensky:

Seems to me that Sen Murphy was pressuring President Zelensky, telling him that if cooperated with an investigation the Bidens (as President Trump had requested) then funding from the US in the future could be under threat. Far more threatening than anything the President had said to Zelensky.

And why wouldn't Sen Murphy want Zelensky to cooperate with an investigation into the Bidens anyway? Would it have anything to do with the 2020 election? It must have! As Murphy has tied to two things (the 2020 election and an investigation into the Bidens) together in his criticism of Trump's comments on the call.

And so there you have it folks: the democrats, yet again, doing the very thing they accuse others of.

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I see Bill Taylor has been quite pally with Sen. Chris Murphy recently:


https://twitter.com/chrismurphyct/status/1186695819057086465


That would be the same Sen Chris Murphy who recently met with Zelensky:





Seems to me that Sen Murphy was pressuring President Zelensky, telling him that if cooperated with an investigation the Bidens (as President Trump had requested) then funding from the US in the future could be under threat. Far more threatening than anything the President had said to Zelensky.

And why wouldn't Sen Murphy want Zelensky to cooperate with an investigation into the Bidens anyway? Would it have anything to do with the 2020 election? It must have! As Murphy has tied to two things (the 2020 election and an investigation into the Bidens) together in his criticism of Trump's comments on the call.

And so there you have it folks: the democrats, yet again, doing the very thing they accuse others of.

Sorry, that's a dreadful misinterpretation of what he said. He made it clear to Zelensky that future aid would be reviewed if he got involved in American politics. The very opposite of what Trump and Giuliani were telling Zelensky.

Outlaw Pete

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He made it clear to Zelensky that future aid would be reviewed if he got involved in American politics.

Sounded like a classic mafia style shakedown to me. Essentially he said:

You cooperate with any investigation into the Bidens ... and you can forget about getting anymore more help from us, kapish!

Professor Moriarty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sounded like a classic mafia style shakedown to me. Essentially he said:

You've been watching too many Godfather movies. I read it as:

Dear President, just a friendly piece of advice. I just want to let you know that America helps you out and if you assist a lunatic and his lunatic lawyer then you will be interfering in American politics. We don't like that.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sounded like a classic mafia style shakedown to me. Essentially he said:

From someone who said the Ukraine call was “perfect” - in your own words, you’ll forgive me if I think you have the faintest idea of what a mafia style shakedown looks like.

Overheal

Surprising nobody, the DOJ is pushing back against a court which ruled that Grand Jury evidence must be given to Congress. Ironically, the DOJ says the material would 'irreparably harm' the DOJ.

I say ironically because the whole agenda of Barr/Trump is do 'drain the deep state' and for the DOJ to investigate itself to impugn its own investigations (Durham inquiry). If their own arguments were consistent, they'd have to lock up whatever Durham finds - some posters on the forum have said Durham is investigating "The greatest crime in the history of the Republic" (their words), and if that's true the revelations must surely cause irreparable damage to the DOJ, no?

Just piques the curiosity to find out what Barr thinks is so irreparably damaging in the findings of the grand jury? Do Americans not have a right to know, as much as they expected to know everything about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and now the Durham inquiry?

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-says-itll-be-irreparably-harmed-if-congress-gets-its-hands-on-muellers-secret-grand-jury-materials/

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Surprising nobody, the DOJ is pushing back against a court which ruled that Grand Jury evidence must be given to Congress. Ironically, the DOJ says the material would 'irreparably harm' the DOJ.

I say ironically because the whole agenda of Barr/Trump is do 'drain the deep state' and for the DOJ to investigate itself to impugn its own investigations (Durham inquiry). If their own arguments were consistent, they'd have to lock up whatever Durham finds - some posters on the forum have said Durham is investigating "The greatest crime in the history of the Republic" (their words), and if that's true the revelations must surely cause irreparable damage to the DOJ, no?

Just piques the curiosity to find out what Barr thinks is so irreparably damaging in the findings of the grand jury? Do Americans not have a right to know, as much as they expected to know everything about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, and now the Durham inquiry?

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/doj-says-itll-be-irreparably-harmed-if-congress-gets-its-hands-on-muellers-secret-grand-jury-materials/

The DOJ's appealing of this clear effort to disrupt to a higher court is to delay it so that it doesn't interfere with the DOJ's now criminal inquiry into the intelligence swamp.
The fact that it is the actions of the old, soon to be proven criminal members of the DOJ prior to Barr and previously under Obama, that they appear to want enquire into seems to have passed you by.
Therein lies the irony.

weisses

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The DOJ's appealing of this clear effort to disrupt to a higher court is to delay it so that it doesn't interfere with the DOJ's now criminal inquiry into the intelligence swamp.
The fact that it is the actions of the old, soon to be proven criminal members of the DOJ prior to Barr and previously under Obama, that they appear to want enquire into seems to have passed you by.
Therein lies the irony.

Ahh William Barr ... The pillar of justice :rolleyes:

Spencerfreeman

weisses wrote: »

Ahh William Barr ... The pillar of justice :rolleyes:

I also have doubts about Barr. Will he go far enough?

duploelabs

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I also have doubts about Barr. Will he go far enough?

Far enough to?

Spencerfreeman

duploelabs wrote: »

Far enough to?

To indite more people, he is after an old member of the swamp.

weisses

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

I also have doubts about Barr. Will he go far enough?

He is already buddies with Donald ... How much further does he need to go ?

Spencerfreeman

weisses wrote: »

He is already buddies with Donald ... How much further does he need to go ?

I was referring to him being friends with earlier administrations. It's not his first rodeo.

duploelabs

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

To indite more people, he is after an old member of the swamp.

Who is?