Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.


A dramatic reading of a made up script is not weak sauce. Why did he do that? Let's stick to facts during this process.


Did you read the transcript and the complaint? Please do.

Let’s discuss the substance of that.

yes, someone didn't learn the difference between facts and opinions in school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump wanted to hide his calls with America's enemies from the Intelligence Community and the Mueller investigation, so he jammed them into codeword files server *run by the CIA?*

It's a good idea to research more. Always.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/obama-administration-saved-call-transcripts-on-same-secret-server-as-trump-administration?%3Futm_source=twitter

Rice tried to float that they only saved unclassified information to this server but had to walk it back when questioned directly about it.

"Rice still acknowledged that the Obama administration also saved some call transcripts on the server and did not expand on what would make something “legitimately … classified.”

“The sources who talked to ABC News did caution that it’s unclear if the calls being stored were done so for national security or for political concerns.” (to avoid leaks)

The outlet also reported a source saying that saving the conversations to the more secure server was “basically standard operating procedure.”

“Both of these revelations undermine the theory that in this specific case, some unique and bizarre method was used to hide the transcript and engage in a cover up,” Marcus wrote. “Rather, the Trump administration appears to have been engaging in business as usual.”

Yeah Susan Rice confirmed it. Trump is following the same procedures as Obama.

Smart move actually, media outrage negated by showing this is standard operating procedure. Of course this could be used to his advantage of Trump shows Obama acted badly in some way.

I am not even sure why this is an issue. The fact is, Trump and Rudy have disclosed the call, and McConnell got Trump to release the summary of the call. The crime is out in the open for all to see. Most Americans are in fact, troubled by the contents of the call, even if some Trump supporters want to ignore what they can read with their own eyes. There is no innocent explanation for what happened, its just that Trump believes, and would have his supporters believe, that the contents are regular order of business. Well, when you are a mobster, that is true. However, I think most Americans agree that the standard for the sitting US president, is, or should be higher.

I honestly believe this is how business is done between countries for decades, even under Obama. The media just didn't cover it.

This is the narrative that Russians are pushing. For some reason, our President has been amplifying their anti-American message. I can’t seem to figure out why, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.

If weak sauce, why did someone as intelligent and motivated as Schiff read from a modified, made up script? Was the original not strong enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.

If there’s a treaty dating back to Bill Clinton saying that we will work together with Ukraine on criminal matters, where’s the actual crime?

You can't be that dense. Does the treaty say that the President's lawyer has authority to tell Ukraine what they have to investigate in order to get a meeting with the President and to receive the military and development aid that Congress appropriated for them? Does the treaty say that the U.S. Ambassador should be smeared in order to get her out of the way if she does not allow the President's lawyer to intervene in U.S. policy with Ukraine? If there is nothing wrong with what Trump did, why did the Trump Administration hide the transcript of the call and defy the law by blocking delivery of the complaint to Congress?

Now, it is true that what Joe Biden did was appropriate as part of the U.S. - Ukraine agreement because he acted through official channels and advocated the position of U.S. government, the IMF, and European allies. And it had nothing to do with his son.

Is Giuliani part of the administration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.

If weak sauce, why did someone as intelligent and motivated as Schiff read from a modified, made up script? Was the original not strong enough?

My point exactly. They won’t go there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.

If weak sauce, why did someone as intelligent and motivated as Schiff read from a modified, made up script? Was the original not strong enough?

My point exactly. They won’t go there.

dp: The public does not have the “original script.” We only have a partial and non-verbatim write-up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

Is that sarcasm?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

How long do you think Watergate took to come to a conclusion, from when the issue was first raised, the investigation by the Senate Select Committee, and so on until the articles of impeachment? Or do you think there were no crimes in Watergate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
No one needs the media or Congress to tell them Trump committed a criminal act. I have read the transcript of the call and the whistleblower allegations in their entirety. The transcript does not contradict the allegations, and suggests that Trump, indeed, asked a foreign country (extorted) to investigate a political opponent.

The whistleblower complaint, for the most part, references known events that were reported on at the time, such as Rudy Giuliani’s European Adventure searching for someone who will give him dirt for Trump.

You want to argue, argue the substance of the allegations here, not whether Adam Schiff is dramatic. That’s weak sauce and a lame attempt to deflect from Trump’s CRIMES.


A dramatic reading of a made up script is not weak sauce. Why did he do that? Let's stick to facts during this process.


Did you read the transcript and the complaint? Please do.

Let’s discuss the substance of that.

yes, someone didn't learn the difference between facts and opinions in school

I am not sure how anyone can claim to have read the transcript of the call, unless they work in federal crime enforcement and have access to the NSC server it has been kept on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are stuck on the whole "heresay" thing, perhaps the following from a noted GOP attorney will help

https://twitter.com/gtconway3d/status/1177995935332409344

Conway?

Can you tell me what exact statements Trump made that are a crime?

You can read it with your own eyes. It has been parsed on several threads in this forum and in many media outlets, including Fox News.

If they were actual crimes, the vote would have taken place and he would be impeached. There would be no delay and no parody reading.

If there is smoke, it has to be investigated to see where the fire is, if any. One doesn't just vote on impeachment haphazardly.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

No, we don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

No, we don't.

Sure we do. Whether Trump thinks Biden did something wrong or knows that he didn't (and there's no telling what Trump knows or thinks anymore), he's asking Ukraine to "find" dirt and give it to him. He wants Ukraine to make up some dirt and give it to him. That's his personal gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me what does “personal gain” for Trump means in this story? We know Biden have not done anything wrong. If Ukrainian government going to confirm this, as they should on Trumps request, what is the personal gain for Trump? It seems that it will make Biden’s position much stronger, right? Does Trump wants Biden nomination over Warren? Is this the personal gain? Or I am missing something?

No, we don't.

Sure we do. Whether Trump thinks Biden did something wrong or knows that he didn't (and there's no telling what Trump knows or thinks anymore), he's asking Ukraine to "find" dirt and give it to him. He wants Ukraine to make up some dirt and give it to him. That's his personal gain.

No, we don't know it.
And, where in the hell are you getting the "make up some dirt and give it to him" line?
You folks are crazy.