Chiphigh

52 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Please tell me what you are posting about.

 

You suggested in an earlier post that the Obama administration solicited foreign interference in an election.  Is the above in any way related?

It is a reply to this previous post to illustrate the double standards :

you think asking for foreign interference in US elections is not an impeachable offense.  I disagree

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

I know that legal foreign aid from the US does not involve asking for illegal investigations and illegal foreign assistance in a US election. 

 

BTW; the biggest recipients of US foreign aid are Afghanistan, Israel and Egypt.  Egypt and Afghanistan are notoriously corrupt, and Israel has an on and off (depending on the latest elections and 'coalition building') Prime Minister charged with corruption.  Why is it that Trump hasn't expressed a keen interest in corruption in these countries?

 

I'll give you a hint about Trump's alleged fixation with corruption in Ukraine; it isn't really a fixation with corruption.

More than anything, it is that he is not a fan of foreign aid at all, especially given the fact that the EU do not live up to the obligations to share the burdens. 

There is no crime, there is nothing impeachable. 

The dems lost this one, again. 

I'm sure they will keep trying no matter what. 

That should concern everyone, if you are objective enough. 

7 hours ago, heybruce said:

No no no...It's not a quid-pro-quo.  It's just a perfect phone call in which one person is talking about military aid and the other person is talking about investigations into silly conspiracy theories.

 

Lovely phone call.  Beautiful plumage.

Monty python is hilarious. 

Dems remind me of a rabid mob foaming at the mouth intent on getting their scalp regardless of what happens. 

42 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I can grasp the obvious, unlike some people.

 

You couldn't afford me.  Also, I know from experience that presenting the obvious to people who don't want to accept it is a waste of time.

OK Bruce. 

I would like to think that you are objective enough to realize that what you determine as "obvious" is also subject to your obvious bias and political leanings. 

To think otherwise would be disingenuous. 

But I fear this may not be the case. 

We can disagree with each other and the world will still be ok. 

Let's get back to the topic. 

8 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe you might consider focusing on the issues at hand rather than sarcastic ad hominem attacks which I consider worthless. 

 

Considering Zelinski's vulnerable situation and considering that in the context of the motivations for his public statements is entirely legitimate. 

Bruce, 

I find many things posted here worthless, but I would not be so inclined to take the leap to assume that I know what other people think and feel inside to feed my own opinions.

You can't call that legitimate. It is your opinion. 

Let's get back to the topic. 

Time will be the judge. 

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

Andrey Telinzhenko posted what?  Don't give us what you imagined he stated, and don't give us what Fox pundits told you to believe.  Give us a credible source and let us read what happened.

Bruce, it's on his Twitter page, look for yourself. 

Disregard this as you certainly will and just assume he is lying. It is your choice. If you don't regard it as credible, then so be it. 

13 hours ago, candide said:

 

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is nothing over-the-top about the drama in Ukraine.  The country is at war with a much more powerful neighbor.  Part of the country has been annexed by Russia.  Part is in open rebellion, with rebels supported by Russia.  Putin clearly wants a pro-Russia government in Kiev that will turn the country into a puppet state.

 

Ukrainian officials learned the funds were being held up two weeks after the Trump-Zelensky phone call:

 

"The report in the Times said the documents and interviews indicated that Ukrainian officials were alerted to the existence of the aid freeze by the end of the first week of August."

"Trump spoke on July 25 with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about a potential investigation of Biden as well as the aid package."   https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/467125-documents-show-ukraine-knew-by-august-that-aid-was-being-withheld

 

Before then they knew they didn't have the funds and didn't have the meeting with Trump that Zelensky needed for credibility before negotiating with Russia. 

 

Zelensky definitely knew that Trump is a vindictive man-child who lashes out at anyone who annoys him when the question of whether he felt pressure was asked.  Zelensky also knew that Trump has a lot of influence over foreign policy even if there is bi-partisan support for Ukraine in the US Congress.  Zelensky doesn't know if the bi-partisan support he has in Congress would last if he confirmed the quid-pro-quo.  Finally, Zelensky knows that Trump is unlikely to be removed from office.  It would have been idiotic for him to antagonize the man-child in Chief.

Answer this question:  What could Zelensky possibly have gained by answering honestly and stating that of course he knew Trump was pressuring him?

 

Well Bruce, at least you had a good venting of your personal animosity and feelings about the president here. 

So now you have the amazing ability to know what the Ukraine pm was thinking, while also knowing that the insults you personally think are true about the president you hate are also his thoughts as well. 

That is an immensely valuable talent, this mind reading thing. Are you available for hire so I can use your skills in some business meetings? 

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

Not while engaged in unlawful activity

What unlawful activities are you referencing here?

13 hours ago, candide said:

What did he post? That the WB and Chalupa were together at the Ukrainian embassy to conspire against Trump. Unless I overlooked something. I did not see that in your sources. You showed one source stating there was a meeting between the DOJ and embassy officials, which is part of their job. Then you show another source citing a private meeting between Chalupa and Ukrainian embassy officials. The link between the two is your imagination.

 

I posted the politico article by Vogel where he's on the record that the push for dirt on manafort and trump was the as well. Go to anreii's Twitter feed, look for yourself. 

Pretend that the effort didn't happen if that makes you satisfied. It's on you. 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

And a president can be removed for doing so for unlawful reasons. Not for the removal, but for the reason.

Can you please tell me what could be unlawful about removing an ambassador for any reason by a president. 

I'll wait for your legal review and dazzling wizardry. 

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

 But it is not an opinion, the official portraits were either send out or weren't, trump told you the truth or he didn't.

Do you like being lied to? I am sure you don't, so prove me wrong, or you will have to reconsider your opinion of trump. which in the privacy of your conscience I am sure you already are.

More virtue signaling, it really is a sad thing to try and spin this into something other than that. 

4 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I am sorry you feel the truth is "getting old"

You have your opinion. I am sorry you think the impeachment is actually warranted. But there is no need to preach or pretend that you possess a better moral perspective. It gets nowhere. 

Stick with yang, he's at least partially sane compared to rest of the clowns.