heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, roobaa01 said: it is the same <deleted> like russian delusion collusion or does it clearly nail bribery, misdemeanor or high treason ??? if yes explain pls. important didn't adam schiff and dem intel committee decipels made contact with the whistleblower weeks before the compain was filed ??? allegedly did schiff help write the complaint ??? what about schiff's ukraine contacts ???? imo the whole thing was a set-up, fraud, hoax in line with dirty steele dossier. wbr roobaa01 I don't know. Why don't you supply a credible source for all your claims/questions? Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. If Trump were interested in helping Ukraine solve its massive corruption problems, why is it the only speculatively corrupt act Trump found worthy of mention was one from years earlier involving the leading Democrat in the upcoming election? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said: So goes the story that some paint. Is it true? I don't know for certain. And I would guarantee that neither do you. Just data points so far. So you don't even know what Prosecutor your post was in reference to. That doesn't help your credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 56 minutes ago, Sujo said: What is ludicrous is your interpretation on things. The whistleblower is totally irrelevant. It could be hitler himself but it matters not. What matters is what trump did. All you are doing s deflecting. And, in US law a whistleblower is protected and there is no right for anyone to know who they are. Its the evidence that matters, not the person who provides that evidence. The identity of whistle blower is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 56 minutes ago, heybruce said: What is this source you find so reliable? The Federalist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 8 minutes ago, heybruce said: I don't know. Why don't you supply a credible source for all your claims/questions? Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. If Trump were interested in helping Ukraine solve its massive corruption problems, why is it the only speculatively corrupt act Trump found worthy of mention was one from years earlier involving the leading Democrat in the upcoming election? Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet. Any discussion of whether he is guilty or is not guilty can only be speculation on our part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtls2005 Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Tippaporn said: Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet. heybruce made a statement, not a judgement, of fact; the general summary of one or more statutes. Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. He did not say the president has been charged, or found guilty. Your advocacy for the preseident is amateurish at best, maybe just stop digging and take a rest? 2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said: Any discussion of whether he is guilty or is not guilty can only be speculation on our part. D'oh. The meter on "Consciousness of Guilt" is pegged on eleven though. I'm sure he'll cooperate with the investigation, all in the name of transparency and because it was a "perfect call". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 21 minutes ago, heybruce said: I see. You can't see any connection between Trump suspending aid, Giuliani spelling out what Trump wanted investigated, and Trump redirecting the conversation with President Zelinsky from military aid to a "favor". Funny, you are full of suspicions about anyone who upsets Trump. You don't find any of the above the least bit suspicious? Given the plethora of other related facts, no, I do not consider the connections that some here make as being the truth of the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 52 minutes ago, heybruce said: So you don't even know what Prosecutor your post was in reference to. That doesn't help your credibility. My response to your comment of the story I posted wasn't in reference to one or the other prosecutor but to your comment highlighting the story of the two prosecutors which has been bandied about in places. Your interpretation is obviously wrong else you wouldn't be asking the question you now are. Your question therefore is moot. I don't worry about my credibility being questioned if that is what you hope for. No concern of mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 A post in violation of fair use policy has been removed as well as a reply. Another post was removed for having a link to an unapproved source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 4 hours ago, Tippaporn said: so the ICIG did not even review the call before finding a 'critical' need to be forwarded... Say what???? The article contains the actual text of the declassified letter from the IC IG to acting DNI where the IC IG confirms that the transcript of Trump's call had never been accessed before forwarding the complaint. Unbelievable!! 4 hours ago, heybruce said: What is this source you find so reliable? 3 hours ago, Tippaporn said: The Federalist. Ok. Now why don't you identify who said what, and what your point is. Also, how about a link to something with "The Federalist" in its name. Your links look like nothing but twitter to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Tippaporn said: Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet. Any discussion of whether he is guilty or is not guilty can only be speculation on our part. "Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet." Nice choice of words. He hasn't been found guilty yet, but the evidence certainly raises suspicions, doesn't it? Good thing it's being investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sujo Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 3 hours ago, Tippaporn said: The identity of whistle blower is relevant. Why? The whistleblower is not being investigated, it is trump being ivestigated. So the identity is irrelevant, its also illegal to try and obtain the identity. All you have done is deflect. The crime investgation is about what trump admitted doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Tippaporn said: Given the plethora of other related facts, no, I do not consider the connections that some here make as being the truth of the matter. Earlier you posted that " I may as well add that there are numerous aspects of the message (the whistle blower report) to be refuted. The complaint is by no means 100% waterproof." I invited you to identify and refute those areas, but you haven't. I now invite you to identify the "plethora of other related facts" that somehow make Trump's actions anything short of obvious extortion. I expect you to once again to post diversions from Trump's actions instead of addressing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Tippaporn said: My response to your comment of the story I posted wasn't in reference to one or the other prosecutor but to your comment highlighting the story of the two prosecutors which has been bandied about in places. Your interpretation is obviously wrong else you wouldn't be asking the question you now are. Your question therefore is moot. I don't worry about my credibility being questioned if that is what you hope for. No concern of mine. Your post, which seems to be deleted, was about an unspecified former US diplomat to Ukraine asking an unspecified former Ukrainian Prosecutor to handle an investigation with "white gloves". You provided no source or context for your post, but insisted that it meant something of significance. I invited you to provide badly needed details, and you failed to do so. As you so often fail to provide sources, context, and substantive details to your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Baiting posts and the replies have been removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 28 minutes ago, heybruce said: Ok. Now why don't you identify who said what, and what your point is. Also, how about a link to something with "The Federalist" in its name. Your links look like nothing but twitter to me. Identify who said what? What are you on about, heybruce, with that question? If you can't see the point that's your problem. Please don't come to me for further clarification. That last bit is inconceivably dull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tippaporn Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 32 minutes ago, heybruce said: "Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet." Nice choice of words. He hasn't been found guilty yet, but the evidence certainly raises suspicions, doesn't it? Good thing it's being investigated. It might raise suspicions if you confine yourself to a very limited number of data points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 23 hours ago, Tippaporn said: I quoted your post before you edited it. And never saw your edit. And that's the truth. <snip> And since you've now slandered my good name in public, steve, I would expect an apology. I posted 12.40, edited 12.41, you posted 12.54. And that's all I'm going to say about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Opl Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 "Rudy Giuliani falsified documents to try to get the State Department to investigate his Russia conspiracy theory against Joe Biden." On the same night that America finds out that Mike Pence may have also committed an impeachable offense, the country learns that the president’s lawyer spends his free time faking White House logos for his conspiracy theory docs. https://www.politicususa.com/2019/10/02/giuliani-fake-white-house-logos.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharlieH Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Reported post removed and other off topic exchanges. Members are not obliged to respond to another if they choose not to, they may also have others on "ignore" in which case they wouldnt even see the post being made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Off-topic posts and replies removed. Please stay on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 12 hours ago, Tippaporn said: so the ICIG did not even review the call before finding a 'critical' need to be forwarded... Say what???? The article contains the actual text of the declassified letter from the IC IG to acting DNI where the IC IG confirms that the transcript of Trump's call had never been accessed before forwarding the complaint. Unbelievable!! 7 hours ago, Tippaporn said: Identify who said what? What are you on about, heybruce, with that question? If you can't see the point that's your problem. Please don't come to me for further clarification. That last bit is inconceivably dull. Re-read your original post. You refer to an article without identifying or linking to the article. Your only links are to twitter. Looks like a pointless post to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 7 hours ago, Tippaporn said: It might raise suspicions if you confine yourself to a very limited number of data points. I see, the case against Trump is too clear and obvious. You want to obfuscate with unnecessary "data points". What are these data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavnel Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 The next 13 years of the United States Presidency will be as follows... Donald Trump 2020 Candace Owens 2024-32 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 16 hours ago, Tippaporn said: How long will they be able to mask the identity of the whistle blower (and his 2nd hand sources)? And how unusual is it that a whistle blowers identity is kept masked? Patrick Eddington is a former CIA employee and now a research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. He's been quoted as saying, "I’m not aware of a circumstance in which" a whistle-blower from the intelligence community "has made allegations of this magnitude and managed to remain anonymous." An individual by law has the right to meet his accuser, and this includes Trump. The whistle blower's lawyer is claiming that a $50,000 'bounty' for any information about the whistleblower's identity has been offered. And that becomes the basis for hiding his identity. There appears to be no verifiable evidence that this bounty exists. Made up or not? Legit or not? An individual has the right to face his accuser in a court of law. Not elsewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heybruce Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 Trump has now called on Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden. To be clear, Trump did not call for general investigations of the widespread corruption in both those countries, he specifically called on them to investigate a political opponent and likely candidate to run against Trump in the 2020 election. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-asked-ukraine-and-china-to-investigate-biden-2019-10/ Imagine the howls of outrage from Trump and his base if any of the Democrat candidates called on foreign powers to investigate Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 13 hours ago, Tippaporn said: Soliciting election help from a foreign power is a crime. Trump has not been proven guilty of that yet. Any discussion of whether he is guilty or is not guilty can only be speculation on our part. Tell that to Trump: “I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens,” Mr. Trump said. “Because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolboy Posted October 3, 2019 Share Posted October 3, 2019 I guess Trump figures he has nothing to lose by going public. Or maybe he tried to speak to Xi and Xi wisely refused to accept the call? Trump urges China to investigate Bidens, despite impeachment inquiry over a similar request to Ukraine President Trump called on China on Thursday to investigate former vice president Joe Biden and his son Hunter in relation to the younger Biden’s business dealings during the tenure of the former vice president. Trump’s comments came as Democrats accelerated an impeachment inquiry that was sparked by a whistleblower’s complaint that Trump had pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a similar investigation. Some said his latest comments had generated another potential article of impeachment. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/10/03/5f81ec5a-e55c-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html I looked for the story on foxnews.com but didn't see it. I'm guessing that this is going to prove a tough one to spin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misty Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 On 10/2/2019 at 3:28 PM, Becker said: Quite a lot of it actually but it only reflects the fact that we're a diverse group of posters and as an avowed liberal I'm duty bound to applaud diversity Absolutely agree regarding welcoming the diversity from people holding genuine personal opinions. Have to wonder how much of this is really paid diversity though. Some of the poster patterns here - and on some of the other threads - seem odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lannarebirth Posted October 4, 2019 Share Posted October 4, 2019 9 hours ago, heybruce said: Trump has now called on Ukraine and China to investigate Joe Biden. To be clear, Trump did not call for general investigations of the widespread corruption in both those countries, he specifically called on them to investigate a political opponent and likely candidate to run against Trump in the 2020 election. https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-asked-ukraine-and-china-to-investigate-biden-2019-10/ Imagine the howls of outrage from Trump and his base if any of the Democrat candidates called on foreign powers to investigate Trump. Circling the drain... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.