.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
dblstndrds
-
Posts
11 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by dblstndrds
-
-
16 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”
so would you agree this should happen regardless of the information and the source?
that the fbi should be notified of any info that could relate to any politician?
i just want to establish the rules that you want to apply to everyone equally first
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
His staff informed law enforcement authorities before they listened to the offer. Do you see how that might be a crucial difference?
You mean after he listened to the phone call.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, heybruce said:
Was this reply meant for a different post? It had nothing to do with my post.
13 hours ago, heybruce said:
Obstruction is what brought Nixon down, and Trump has more clearly committed obstruction than Nixon. On top of that is Trump's illegal attempts at obstructing House oversight. Now we have Trump clearly stating he would accept illegal election assistance from a foreign power.
There is more than enough for the House to vote for impeachment. However so long as the Senate is putting Trump above the law it is pointless.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:
What you failed to note is that Schiff promptly reported it to the FBI. Here's Schiff's response to them:
He told Parubiy that the U.S. would welcome the chance to review the evidence he had described. “We will try to work with the FBI to figure out, along with your staff, how we can obtain copies.”...
A spokesman for Schiff said, “Before agreeing to take the call, and immediately following it, the committee informed appropriate law-enforcement and security personnel of the conversation, and of our belief that it was probably bogus.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/putins-game/546548/
he listened, as the president said he would.
how do you know if it bogus or legit if you
do no hear it?
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Berkshire said:
[Federal Elections Commission chair Ellen Weintraub said Thursday it is illegal to accept foreign interference during elections after President Trump publicly suggested he would accept foreign intel on opponents.
"I would not have thought that I needed to say this," Weintraub tweeted Thursday with her statement.]
It's pretty clear and unambiguous. The stupidity of Trump and his supporters never cease to amaze.
so this is illegal?
-
-
13 hours ago, heybruce said:
Obstruction is what brought Nixon down, and Trump has more clearly committed obstruction than Nixon. On top of that is Trump's illegal attempts at obstructing House oversight. Now we have Trump clearly stating he would accept illegal election assistance from a foreign power.
There is more than enough for the House to vote for impeachment. However so long as the Senate is putting Trump above the law it is pointless.
he said he would listen to information. get over the breathless indignation and exaggerations please
Mueller says he could not charge Trump as Congress weighs impeachment
in World News
Posted
there is no "undermining" of democracy going on with the current potus.
there is, however, a constant undermining of a legally elected president because
irrational emotional people aren't able to accept legal election results.
if you think your ideas are better, then get elected.