President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Funny how you lot

Excuse me? What do you mean by "you lot"?

I'm neither an American citizen and by extension a supporter of any American Political Party.

But it is clear lad that you are so embedded in the narrative you have lost the ability to rationally think.

Obviously you are an American citizen that has inserted themselves into the division where facts and reality don't apply. That's your choice and completely up to you, I merely asked you a very simply question which you couldn't / wouldn't answer.

I'm simply an observer.

So no, I'm not anyone's "lot" thank you.

Cody montana

Boggles wrote: »

Excuse me? What do you mean by "you lot"?

I'm neither an American citizen and by extension a supporter of any American Political Party.

But it is clear lad that you are so embedded in the narrative you have lost the ability to rationally think.

Obviously you are an American citizen that has inserted themselves into the division where facts and reality don't apply. That's your choice and completely up to you, I merely asked you a very simply question which you couldn't / wouldn't answer.

I'm simply an observer.

So no, I'm not anyone's "lot" thank you.

“You lot” normally means the left I believe!
There seems to the a lot of “you lot”.

Cody montana

So to summarise yesterday.

Army officer tells impeachment inquiry of gaps in Trump’s Ukraine transcript
Lt Col Vindman reportedly said omissions included references to Joe Biden and Burisma.

Vote for resolution setting next steps in impeachment process set for tomorrow
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50230276

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Funny how you lot can call into question the integrity of AG Barr and Pompeo on the regular and that's all fine and dandy, but suggest one of these White House leakers may have a dog in the race, and be motivated by something other than being a patriot, and it's out with the pearls and 'Oh my God, how could he say such a thing about a decorated veteran, he must be on a wind up'. Don't make me laugh. Oliver North was a decorated veteran for heaven sake. They're medals, not halos.


Anyway ....


https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1189352771214073856


And oh look, Zeldin is spot on, as tonight there was a New York Times article right on que with cherry picked leaks from the dems:




Anyone who thinks this man is anything but a biased individual, who is part and parcel of the contingent of Obama holdovers who can't stand Trump, is very naive. End of the day Trump is the Commander in Chief and there is more than enough evidence that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election, and also that Biden's son may have benefited from his father threatening to withhold $1bln in aid from the Ukraine (unless they fired their top prosecutor at the time) and therefore it is perfectly acceptable for the President to ask the leader of the Ukraine to look into both matters and try and find out the TRUTH.

That Biden is running for president is neither here nor there.

Dig up

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

Excuse me? What do you mean by "you lot"?

Not sure what you're confused about. I made it clear in the post. You lot are constantly condemning members of the Trump administration suggesting they have no professional integrity (I gave examples) but yet whenever us lot (see, not an inherently pejorative term) do similar, out come the pearls and accusations of trying to wind people up. It's hypocritical.

But it is clear lad that you are so embedded in the narrative you have lost the ability to rationally think. I merely asked you a very simply question which you couldn't / wouldn't answer.

Ha! You suggested I didn't believe what I was posting and was trying to wind people up, would you go away outta that with 'Merely asked me a question'. If you have an issue with a point I have made, argue against it maybe rather than suggest I am trying to wind people up.

Obviously you are an American citizen that has inserted themselves into the division where facts and reality don't apply.

First of all I am not an American and secondly all my views are backed up by the facts. Unlike those who keep saying Trump asked Zelensky to drag up dirt on Biden and to interfere in the 2020 election. That's a bs narrative, little else.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

First of all I am not an American

:eek:

Really?

Jaysus.

SJW Lover

Overheal wrote: »

A WaPo-Schae poll earlier in the month asked voters if it was okay for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate Biden. 32% of adults said it was okay, 62% said no. Of those, 84% of democrats said it was not okay to 59% of republicans who said it was okay.

So a Grinnell poll took a cross examination of this: by removing the names (Trump, Biden) the poll got remarkably different responses:

“Is it okay with you or not okay for political candidates in the U.S. to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help them win an election?”

Just 7% of adults polled said it was okay, 81% said it’s not okay. Oh, and More than 80 percent of self-identified Republicans, evangelicals and rural dwellers say it’s not okay for a president to ask for assistance from a foreign government to help win an election.

https://www.grinnell.edu/news/job-approval-dips-unfavorable-feelings-climb-president-trump

The WaPo that decided to describe the leader of ISIS as an "austere Islamic scholar" rather than an evil monster in their obituary over the weekend? You expect anyone to take the WaPo seriously?

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

all my views are backed up by the facts. Unlike those who keep saying Trump asked Zelensky to drag up dirt on Biden and to interfere in the 2020 election. That's a bs narrative, little else.

Lol

Overheal

SJW Lover wrote: »

The WaPo that decided to describe the leader of ISIS as an "austere Islamic scholar" rather than an evil monster in their obituary over the weekend? You expect anyone to take the WaPo seriously?

It’s Grinnell. Not WaPo. Your dismissing the whole publication over some crank editing a headline is your problem not mine.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Lol

Great argument. That showed me.

MadYaker wrote: »

And I had to laugh at your “Obama holdovers” comment. Is there any evidence of who these people are and how they’re currently trying to work against the administration? Why doesn’t trump remove these people?

Any evidence?? Mother of lord.

You mean apart from the constant leaks and so called whistleblowers?

How about this:

I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The left keep looking the other way on this and refuse to accept that there is a contingent of officials trying to do what they can from within to see that Trump is removed from office.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great argument. That showed me.



Any evidence?? Mother of lord.

You mean apart from the constant leaks and so called whistleblowers?

How about this:



The left keep looking the other way on this and refuse to accept that there is a contingent of officials trying to do what they can from within to see that Trump is removed from office.

Your evidence of obama holdovers is an anonymous confession from a Trump appointee.

Can’t make this stuff up. Nowhere either does the author say they’re trying to get trump removed, they make it clear they’re babysitting his impulses that will get him into trouble.

Also what’s up with this “so called” whistleblower business? There is a whistleblower and they are protected under federal law, despite Republicans best efforts to divine their identity (https://www.mediaite.com/news/watch-jim-jordan-admits-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower-while-denying-hes-trying-to-out-whistleblower/)

here I thought all your views “are backed up with facts”

Spencerfreeman

The phone call. All this "he said" malarkey.
Who forgot the press the record button?
Where's the beef?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

The phone call. All this "he said" malarkey.
Who forgot the press the record button?
Where's the beef?

Recordings haven’t been popular in the Oval Office since the Nixon tapes.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

No he asked them to investigate Joe Biden.

He also asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden's comments that he had threatened to withhold $1billion in US aid until they threatened to fire their prosecutor, given the media have reported that his son sat on the board of a company that prosecutor had investigated and had of course made a lot of money from.

You can keep on pointing out that Biden is running for election until the cows come home if you like, it won't change the fact that there was, and are, legitimate reasons to investigate his apparent conflict of interest if nothing else.

The favour however was to look into Ukraine's alleged interference in the 2016 election and so nothing at all wrong with that either. Trump would be remiss not to raise these issues and ask for Zelensky to look into them given Ukraine's notorious issues with corruption.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

He also asked Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden's comments that he had threatened to withhold $1billion in US aid until they threatened to fire their prosecutor, given the media have reported that his son sat on the board of a company that prosecutor had investigated and had of course made a lot of money from.

You can keep on pointing out that Biden is running for election until the cows come home if you like, it won't change the fact that there was, and are, legitimate reasons to investigate his apparent conflict of interest if nothing else.

The favour however was to look into Ukraine's alleged interference in the 2016 election and so nothing at all wrong with that either. Trump would be remiss not to raise these issues and ask for Zelensky to look into them given Ukraine's notorious issues with corruption.

The irony of your post is your thesis surrounding conflict of interest - yet you see no problem with Trump trying to launch investigations into Biden as part of his own shadow policy in the Ukraine.

now I’m going to bold this next bit because you’ve ignored it countless times on this thread: Joe Biden carried out foreign policy endorsed by the Congress (notably the GOP), The United States Department of State, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund. He bragged about the loan at a talk in 2018, if there was any legitimate reason to investigate it did not require the personal meddling of Donald Trump, his personal attorney with no legal position in the Administration or the US government, or his mega donor ambassador trying to go around John Bolton, the National Security Adviser to ‘cook up a drug deal’ where “Burisma” was specifically brought up - in the summer of 2019

Donald Trump sought an investigation into his political rival in the 2020 election. His actions are a violation of campaign finance law.

Spencerfreeman

Why didn't anyone do anything? Obvious corruption of public office.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Why didn't anyone do anything? Obvious corruption of public office.

Do anything about what?

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Do anything about what?

Biden's corruption. Withholding funds for political favour.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Biden's corruption. Withholding funds for political favour.

/sigh

Joe Biden carried out foreign policy endorsed by the Congress (notably the GOP), The United States Department of State, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

“Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/23/20879611/joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-prosecutor-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

/sigh

Joe Biden carried out foreign policy endorsed by the Congress (notably the GOP), The United States Department of State, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

“Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/23/20879611/joe-biden-hunter-biden-ukraine-corruption-prosecutor-burisma-donald-trump-whistleblower-complaint

Ya ya balls. Point out where it says it was to stop the investigation into Burisma?

James Brown

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Biden's corruption. Withholding funds for political favour.

As you know there's withholding funds in the interest of the United States and allies and as Trump did, withholding funds for personal political gain against the interests of the United States congress. There's even talk of impeaching Trump over this.

Spencerfreeman

Matt Barrett wrote: »

As you know there's withholding funds in the interest of the United States and allies and as Trump did, withholding funds for personal political gain against the interests of the United States congress. There's even talk of impeaching Trump over this.

Nothing to do with Trump's allegation.

mcmoustache

If there was even any question about Biden and holding funds back then, Republicans would have raised hell about it. The fact that they didn't says all there is to know. Anyone who can't figure that out should perhaps look inward instead of outward for the reasons why.

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Ya ya balls. Point out where it says it was to stop the investigation into Burisma?

It wasn’t though?

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

The irony of your post is your thesis surrounding conflict of interest - yet you see no problem with Trump trying to launch investigations into Biden as part of his own shadow policy in the Ukraine.

I haven't ignored it, I have addressed it multiple times.

Indeed, much of that aspect of things continues given that the US still has International support (and congressional support) to weed out corruption in Ukraine. However, it is one thing supporting the US in their efforts to see that corruption in Ukraine is fought and supporting threats made to that country using $1billion in aid as leverage. Funny how the left is pearl clutching at the notion Trump could have threatened the US in this regard, but look the other way when we have proof Biden did it.

Secondly, and this is the point which appears to go over your head: there are other issues with Biden's boasting beyond the fact the prosecutor in question was thought to be corrupt, and that is that Biden's son sat on a board of a company that was being investigated by that prosecutor and no matter what way you spin it, that has to be investigated.

Donald Trump sought an investigation into his political rival in the 2020 election. His actions are a violation of campaign finance law.

That's just a BS narrative. Running for president does not give you immunity from the law.

Spencerfreeman

mcmoustache wrote: »

If there was even any question about Biden and holding funds back then, Republicans would have raised hell about it. The fact that they didn't says all there is to know. Anyone who can't figure that out should perhaps look inward instead of outward for the reasons why.

When were the crimes associated with Burisma first revealed?

Overheal

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

When were the crimes associated with Burisma first revealed?

Before Hunter joined the board.

You should read what I posted

Spencerfreeman

Overheal wrote: »

Before Hunter joined the board.

You should read what I posted

This bit?

"Joe Biden carried out foreign policy endorsed by the Congress (notably the GOP), The United States Department of State, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

“Everyone in the Western community wanted Shokin sacked,” Anders Aslund, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, told the Wall Street Journal. “The whole G-7, the IMF, the EBRD, everybody was united that Shokin must go, and the spokesman for this was Joe Biden.”


Don't see it.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I haven't ignored it, I have addressed it multiple times.

Bull.

Indeed, much of that aspect of things continues given that the US still has International support (and congressional support) to weed out corruption in Ukraine. However, it is one thing supporting the US in their efforts to see that corruption in Ukraine is fought and supporting threats made to that country using $1billion in aid as leverage.

conflation: Biden was carrying out US policy to support the US in their efforts to combat corruption in the Ukraine by withholding the $1B in aid at the suggestion of other policy makers.

Secondly, and this is the point which appears to go over your head: there are other issues with Biden's boasting beyond the fact the prosecutor in question was thought to be corrupt, and that is that Biden's son sat on a board of a company that was being investigated by that prosecutor and no matter what way you spin it, that has to be investigated.

it was investigated.

That's just a BS narrative. Running for president does not give you immunity from the law.

ROFLMAO go on about a “BS narrative” and then concoct a strawman argument that Biden is immune from the law? He really isn’t. He’s been investigated. It’s been investigated. No there there as reported by many both in the US and the Ukraine and you only have Shokin’s disgruntled statement to suggest otherwise despite people in Shokins own office speaking out against him (see Vox link)

You know what’s not BS though? The President is not above the law.