Oh Donnie, You're invited

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

There is no mention of military aid funds in any of this.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What's your spin, oops sorry, point?

The military aid, the investigation of the Bidens and the WH meeting are all things of value that Floridaman asked for or withheld for personal gain and are referenced in multiple witnesses testimony.

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They weren't referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit is an assumption, not a fact. The "appearance" of something, such as the appearance of Hunter Biden being hired by Burisma being bad optics is not a crime. And when there are conflicting "appearances," such as wanting investigations in this case to assure that corruption is being fought, then it is a matter of spin, not fact.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You're wrong, they are reason enough to investigate, and there is no precedent or reason for the ongoing obstruction, unless you are guilty of course.

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You're wrong. I am correct in pointing out that the military aid was not referenced in those posts. And the personal gain bit IS an assumption. If it takes an investigation to prove it, then, until and if that happens, it is an assumption.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I could post every bit of the testimony, Floridaman's asks were detailed in the testimony.
Having Guiliani as a cutout does not make it impossible to prosecute the crime.
Floridaman is following his lifelong pattern of obstruction, he's been doing it fairly successfully since the 70's.
He has way more people watching him now than ever before.
It's closing in on him.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!

So I was not wrong.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So I was not wrong.

But don't worry the laughable GOP report says, yes, Trump did it. But his motives were pure!