Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pelosi just admitted to not seeing the transcript, yet continued to condemn the president based on a transcript she has not read.

She is looking more and more idiotic with each statement.

The Democrats are desperate because they are fearful that not one of their candidates cannot beat Trump.

Of course she hasn't seen it. Apparently the only ones who have are the DNI, Barr and Guiliani.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
So no foreign government can investigate your children if you're running for President as a Democrat, got it. But Democrats are free to ask that same foreign government for aid in investigating the U.S. President. Makes sense.

If you don't think that it's chilling that a US President would ask a foreign government to investigate a US citizen (against whom the US has not made any official charge or accusation), I'm not sure what to say...

[Anonymous]

So what's this passage mean:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

Who are they, what is Crowdstrike, and who is the wealthy person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why won’t they release the entire whistleblower complaint to congress? That is fishy right there.

And in direct violation of the law. They don't even possess it legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So what's this passage mean:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

Who are they, what is Crowdstrike, and who is the wealthy person?

It's the Hillary email server conspiracy. Seriously. That's what he was asking for. *facepalm*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's this passage mean:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

Who are they, what is Crowdstrike, and who is the wealthy person?

It's the Hillary email server conspiracy. Seriously. That's what he was asking for. *facepalm*

But who are "they"? And who is the wealthy person?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the WAPO summary of the phone call, not enough there to impeach. - lib

It's a critical piece of information, where the President asks another country's leader to investigate a political opponent. The other part of the puzzle is Trump's order to withhold aid before the call.
Put the two together and you have an impeachable offense.

Nope.

And, what the president did in relation to an investigation is NO DIFFERENT than what several Senators did - in a letter.
Are we going after them too?

The Senators are not running for the Presidency and Biden is not their direct political rival for the Presidency. Your equivalency is false.

Oh, please. Your reasoning is a stretch.
We can also go back to the whole Russia investigation - an effort by the DNC and Hillary Clinton to seek info from a foreign source to impact the election.

As we have said several times..... the Democrats accuse the opposition of everything they are guilty of.

Exactly.

Show us where Trump says "you'll get your money when you investigate Biden's son".

Until then....Womp Womp.

Many people are talking about how poor your communication skills are. They're saying that your demand for perfect literalism is reminiscent of a robot or someone who speaks English as a second language. Very difficult to get you to understand anything. Sad.

Dp. Literally, few care what your opinion is of their communication skills when you exhibit your poor reading comprehension and are eating your chess pieces instead of "playing 3D chess" with them. I asked where are the 8 references to Biden in the call?

"They are saying" ? Seriously, This transcript speaks for itself. Others' coverage speaks for itself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:was this written right after the call or was the publicly released document edited recently?

The latter.

It is like the Barr memorandum version of the phone call.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the WAPO summary of the phone call, not enough there to impeach. - lib

It's a critical piece of information, where the President asks another country's leader to investigate a political opponent. The other part of the puzzle is Trump's order to withhold aid before the call.
Put the two together and you have an impeachable offense.

Nope.

And, what the president did in relation to an investigation is NO DIFFERENT than what several Senators did - in a letter.
Are we going after them too?

The Senators are not running for the Presidency and Biden is not their direct political rival for the Presidency. Your equivalency is false.

Oh, please. Your reasoning is a stretch.
We can also go back to the whole Russia investigation - an effort by the DNC and Hillary Clinton to seek info from a foreign source to impact the election.

As we have said several times..... the Democrats accuse the opposition of everything they are guilty of.

Exactly.

Show us where Trump says "you'll get your money when you investigate Biden's son".

Until then....Womp Womp.

No need to show anything like that. The threat was implicit by withholding aid.

There doesn't need to be a threat. You can't ask a foreign government to help your political campaign by investigating your opponent, and you REALLY can't do that as president. Holy crap.

It's equivalent to inviting foreign intervention in an election.

It's not just equivalent. That's literally what it is, and he did it THE DAY AFTER MUELLER TESTIFIED.

He even mentioned, and denigrated, Mueller in the call. This is so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:read the WAPO summary of the phone call, not enough there to impeach. - lib

It's a critical piece of information, where the President asks another country's leader to investigate a political opponent. The other part of the puzzle is Trump's order to withhold aid before the call.
Put the two together and you have an impeachable offense.

Nope.

And, what the president did in relation to an investigation is NO DIFFERENT than what several Senators did - in a letter.
Are we going after them too?

The Senators are not running for the Presidency and Biden is not their direct political rival for the Presidency. Your equivalency is false.

Oh, please. Your reasoning is a stretch.
We can also go back to the whole Russia investigation - an effort by the DNC and Hillary Clinton to seek info from a foreign source to impact the election.

As we have said several times..... the Democrats accuse the opposition of everything they are guilty of.

Exactly.

Show us where Trump says "you'll get your money when you investigate Biden's son".

Until then....Womp Womp.

No need to show anything like that. The threat was implicit by withholding aid.

There doesn't need to be a threat. You can't ask a foreign government to help your political campaign by investigating your opponent, and you REALLY can't do that as president. Holy crap.

It's equivalent to inviting foreign intervention in an election.

So no foreign government can investigate your children if you're running for President as a Democrat, got it. But Democrats are free to ask that same foreign government for aid in investigating the U.S. President. Makes sense.

They didn't, actually.

Did you read the letter? It "strongly encourages" the Ukrainian prosecutor to "reverse course" and "halt any efforts to impede" cooperation with the Mueller probe. In fact, it specifically mentions Trump, asking the Ukrainian prosecutor general if the Trump administration encouraged the Ukrainian government to not cooperate with the Mueller investigation, which is direct evidence that the Democrats considered the possibility that whatever the prosecutor was withholding implicated the Trump administration in some scandal.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Prosecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's this passage mean:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

Who are they, what is Crowdstrike, and who is the wealthy person?

It's the Hillary email server conspiracy. Seriously. That's what he was asking for. *facepalm*

Really? I know this is not what people want, but this is article 25 material. He's clinically insane. Who was it again who "joked" about this early on in his Presidency (not really, but he had to defend himself)?

[Anonymous]

Did you read the letter? It "strongly encourages" the Ukrainian prosecutor to "reverse course" and "halt any efforts to impede" cooperation with the Mueller probe. In fact, it specifically mentions Trump, asking the Ukrainian prosecutor general if the Trump administration encouraged the Ukrainian government to not cooperate with the Mueller investigation, which is direct evidence that the Democrats considered the possibility that whatever the prosecutor was withholding implicated the Trump administration in some scandal.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-1...%20Mueller%20investigation.pdf

Dude. Give it up. It's not going to work. This one's too black and white.

[Anonymous]

Hillary’s emails!! I can’t even. I would laugh if the last 2.5 years haven’t been so f-ing sad and demoralizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If Hunter Biden were corrupt, would it be more ok for Trump to ask for this? I say This because cnn anchors seem to feel it is important in connection with last night’s coverage to say Hunter Biden is innocent.

No, but it's also true that there's no factual basis for the Biden theory.

Here's the truth.

Children of wealthy and influential people always get the easy path, to curry favor with their parents. This is why Hunter was paid ridiculous sums for his work on the Board, and it happens everyday to a lot of children of powerful people.

While I think that's disgusting, there has never been any shred of evidence that Hunter or his father did anything immoral or unethical in Ukraine. Meaning that they profit from their status as privileged people, but they're not dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So what's this passage mean:

I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

Who are they, what is Crowdstrike, and who is the wealthy person?

It's the Hillary email server conspiracy. Seriously. That's what he was asking for. *facepalm*

Really? I know this is not what people want, but this is article 25 material. He's clinically insane. Who was it again who "joked" about this early on in his Presidency (not really, but he had to defend himself)?

Nope. Crowdstrike was the company that supposedly ascertained that the DNC had been hacked by the Russians.

U.S. intelligence officials cannot make definitive conclusions about the hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer servers because they did not analyze those servers themselves. Instead, they relied on the forensics of CrowdStrike, a private contractor for the DNC that was not a neutral party, much as “Russian dossier” compiler Christopher Steele, also a DNC contractor, was not a neutral party. This puts two Democrat-hired contractors squarely behind underlying allegations in the affair – a key circumstance that Mueller ignores.
Further, the government allowed CrowdStrike and the Democratic Party's legal counsel to submit redacted records, meaning CrowdStrike and not the government decided what could be revealed or not regarding evidence of hacking.

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/07/05/crowdstrikeout_muellers_own_report_undercuts_its_core_russia-meddling_claims.html