Rumors or where there's smoke there's something

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

you’ll say anything to make the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

you’ll say anything to make the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you cant follow the bouncing ball to well can you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

Once again, you didn't respond to what I asked, not even close.

You said that what Biden did with quid pro quo in K=Ukraine wasn't extortion, because the State Department was on board. SO using your logic (your logic, not mine), if the State Department was OK with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, that would not be extortion? just seeing if that standard only applies to Biden.

I have news for you. Trump is going to be the nominee in 2020. The house will probably impeach, there's no way the senate convicts, not based on what we know now. Zero chance. There may even be some democrats who don't vote for conviction like the coal guy Munchin from WV.

I'm not saying Trump will win. I'm saying he's going to be the nominee.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you cant follow the bouncing ball to well can you

Hey Einstein, read Pete's post, or have someone read it to you. Pete said that Bidens quid pro quo when he was VP wasn't extortion, because the state department was on board. So I asked if that standard also applied to Trump.

I'm sorry if that's going too fast for you, I don't know how to simplify it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I did hear Biden brag that he threatened to withhold monetary aid to Ukraine, unless they did what he wanted. I hear a lot of people saying Trump should be impeached for essentially doing the same thing. Of course, that's after years of them saying he should be impeached just because they didn't like him, so the threshold is somewhat nebulous and flexible, for what constitutes an impeachable offense. Apparently it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, you didn't respond to what I asked, not even close.

You said that what Biden did with quid pro quo in K=Ukraine wasn't extortion, because the State Department was on board. SO using your logic (your logic, not mine), if the State Department was OK with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, that would not be extortion? just seeing if that standard only applies to Biden.

I have news for you. Trump is going to be the nominee in 2020. The house will probably impeach, there's no way the senate convicts, not based on what we know now. Zero chance. There may even be some democrats who don't vote for conviction like the coal guy Munchin from WV.

I'm not saying Trump will win. I'm saying he's going to be the nominee.

I think you are incapable of critical thought

What you asked was
so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

My answer was
Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

Maybe you think they would not come forth with evidence to clear Trump or that I need to actually take a poll.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

Oh. Because firing a crooked prosecutor makes it more likely they could pay us back? We all know Biden and Obama were very frugal with national spending, and wanted to make sure any loans will be repaid back. Biden was just acting as a mortgage underwriter. Of course!

And Trump, as the executive branch, has no authority to inquire as to Americans engaged in corruption in other countries. Gotcha.

[Jim in CT]

Pete, you said Bidens quid pro quo was OK because he had the state departments permission. I asked if Trump was held to the same standard.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Pete, you said Bidens quid pro quo was OK because he had the state departments permission. I asked if Trump was held to the same standard.

and i said

if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify.

Hear any banging????????????

Anyone other than Trumplicans saying it is ok

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

and i said

if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify.

Hear any banging????????????

Anyone other than Trumplicans saying it is ok

You're assuming he has been proven to be guilty. If that were so, using your flawed process of deduction, the inquiry would be over.

[wdmso]

State dept quid pro quo goes like this happens all the Time at the direction of the secretary of state (its called policy)

Country A if you want US assistance you need to do A) improve human rights B) follow the rule of law C) allow inspectors in then we'll give you assistance


Trumps quid pro quo goes like this tells his personal lawyer to tell country A (ukraine) if you want the assistance that congress has already approved for you .. you need to
A) investegate the bidens (His political rival) B) announce it publicly your investigating them for corruption (with no evidence provided or required ) then we'll give you the assistance congress already approved ...

if you can not fundamentally see a difference ..your in the Trump Cult

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by wdmso

State dept quid pro quo goes like this happens all the Time at the direction of the secretary of state (its called policy)

Country A if you want US assistance you need to do A) improve human rights B) follow the rule of law C) allow inspectors in then we'll give you assistance


Trumps quid pro quo goes like this tells his personal lawyer to tell country A (ukraine) if you want the assistance that congress has already approved for you .. you need to
A) investegate the bidens (His political rival) B) announce it publicly your investigating them for corruption (with no evidence provided or required ) then we'll give you the assistance congress already approved ...

if you can not fundamentally see a difference ..your in the Trump Cult

The merry-go-round continues, why anyone spends so much energy in a debate with one side who can’t or won’t see the difference is just fruitless. You can post evidence, quotes from the depositions, video from White House staff and they will not budge, but have fun with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The merry-go-round continues, why anyone spends so much energy in a debate with one side who can’t or won’t see the difference is just fruitless. You can post evidence, quotes from the depositions, video from White House staff and they will not budge, but have fun with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds just like arguing with a Democrat
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

This statement is akin to being retarded. But perhaps you are simply misunderstood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by wdmso

State dept quid pro quo goes like this happens all the Time at the direction of the secretary of state (its called policy)

Country A if you want US assistance you need to do A) improve human rights B) follow the rule of law C) allow inspectors in then we'll give you assistance


Trumps quid pro quo goes like this tells his personal lawyer to tell country A (ukraine) if you want the assistance that congress has already approved for you .. you need to
A) investegate the bidens (His political rival) B) announce it publicly your investigating them for corruption (with no evidence provided or required ) then we'll give you the assistance congress already approved ...

if you can not fundamentally see a difference ..your in the Trump Cult

This interpretation of what you envision as standard policy is far from accurate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

The merry-go-round continues, why anyone spends so much energy in a debate with one side who can’t or won’t see the difference is just fruitless. You can post evidence, quotes from the depositions, video from White House staff and they will not budge, but have fun with it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What kind of douchebag demonstrates why you should not continue the discussion,but then cant help but continue the stupidity he just served as an example? Go play golf or play with Peg. But stop looking for attention with your incessant complaining. This is why snowflakes are generally viewed as big babies screaming “look at me”. Just stop stomping your feet long enough to realize what a bitch really is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Bad day at work😜SD, you seem angry, someone needs a hug. You of all people shouldn’t be using the discussion argument. Here is your typical discussion, best president of my lifetime, four more years, snowflakes, I’m not sure I’ve ever seen you have an in depth discussion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

This is my work. I guess you just had a good day at being stupid.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This interpretation of what you envision as standard policy is far from accurate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please feel free to show where I am inaccurate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

So let's get this straight.

Trumplicans are arguing that all people willing to testify under oath are lying, and all people unwilling to testify under oath are telling the truth.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how #^&#^&#^&#^&ING STUPID Trumplicans are.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

President Donald Trump slammed Hillary Clinton staffers who requested immunity or invoked their Fifth Amendment rights in response to requests to testify about the former secretary of state's private email server.

"If you are not guilty of a crime, what do you need immunity for?" Trump said

Yet He directs his people to ingnore congressional subpoenas....

Lol
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This statement is akin to being retarded. But perhaps you are simply misunderstood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Care to level up by making a point?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

You just made my point, but I really should not have to dumb it down for a grown man. Feel free to think when you are inclined to do so.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Trump whined and screamed that the case against him and his foundation was partisan and the he would never settle because he did nothing wrong.

He settled AND he admitted liability.

With that in mind, look at the way Trump is behaving with the impeachment inquiry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device