Jump to content
You are not logged in ▶️ Click to sign-up or login ×

U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

webfact

By webfact
in World News

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
roobaa01 Advanced Member

roobaa01

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, chokrai said:

About as well as the Russia coup, the Stormy Daniels coup, the Racist coup etc

i have one more the recession hoax coup.

mccathy made it cear there was no impeachment inquiry only a political hack ...

moreover how can schiff play prosecutor since he and his staff became fact witnesses, for

the hearsay whistler did not expose his schiff contact to the ig. imo ukrainian case aborted, hoax file closed.

 

wbr

roobaa01

Link to comment
Share on other sites
candide Diamond Member

candide

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

[9/9/19, 12:47:11 AM] (Ambassador) Bill Taylor:  As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

And, of course, he said that just for the pleasure of opening his big gob and telling the first BS that came to his mind.....

If he said that, it is because someone has proposed to do it.

 

Same as when Taylor asked the next day: "are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"

(Sondland replied, "Call me.", lol)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Becker said:

Link: 2nd Whistleblower May Come Forward On Trump's Ukraine Call

 

"A second intelligence official with even more direct information on President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into meddling in the presidential election may come forward to Congress, The New York Times reported Friday night."

 

Likely one of the 1st whistle blower's sources who now decides to file as well and make it look like there's more dirt from an entirely different source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, doggie1955 said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-ukraine-ambassadors-testimony-throws-cold-water-democrats-quid-pro-quo-argument-against-trump?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=benshapiro

 

The opening statement by the former Ambassador is the bit where he gets to claim he acted within the law/procedures, had no part in any law breaking and never acted in knowledge of law breaking

 

It’s the bit where he declares he’s not the crook the committee are seeking.

 

And....importantly, he wrote it before hearing a single question from the committee and before being cross examined.

 

Clutch at the straws being tossed to you by the ‘Daily Wire’ if it helps you continue your denials of reality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
24 minutes ago, candide said:

And, of course, he said that just for the pleasure of opening his big gob and telling the first BS that came to his mind.....

If he said that, it is because someone has proposed to do it.

 

Same as when Taylor asked the next day: "are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"

(Sondland replied, "Call me.", lol)

 

If he said that, it is because someone has proposed to do it.

 

Not necessarily the only explanation.  Might be another explanation.  Taylor simply misinterpreted, as Sondland explained to him.

 

And if someone did propose to do it who, when and where is that documented?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

If he said that, it is because someone has proposed to do it.

 

Not necessarily the only explanation.  Might be another explanation.  Taylor simply misinterpreted, as Sondland explained to him.

 

And if someone did propose to do it who, when and where is that documented?

You’ll get your answer soon enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
chokrai Advanced Member

chokrai

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not at all.

 

Let’s wait and see what comes out of the ongoing investigation.

 

The list of Trump’s crimes it is revealing grows by the day. He’s now helpfully committing crimes in plain sight.

 

 

The wish is the father of the thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
candide Diamond Member

candide

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

If he said that, it is because someone has proposed to do it.

 

Not necessarily the only explanation.  Might be another explanation.  Taylor simply misinterpreted, as Sondland explained to him.

 

And if someone did propose to do it who, when and where is that documented?

He said "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

 

So he objected to someone who raised the issue of of withholding security assistance. If the subject of the previous call had been "on which side of the platform should we put the US flag?", he would not have said "it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted

Ignore the hype — this is not an impeachment inquiry

 

The Dems have yet to get the show on the road.  No impeachment inquiry yet.  Schiff wrote a letter to Pompeo with demands.  Pompeo replied, ah, no thanks.  So pencil-neck Schiff then has a presser warning Pompeo and others that blowing him off will be construed as obstructing congress.  I know that sounds very, very scary coming from a high and mighty worm.

 

But there is no formal impeachment inquiry yet.  Geez, what are the Dems waiting for???  Let's get this show on the road.  My popcorn is ready.  You'd think that the Dems thought this was a slam dunk but perhaps they're not so sure.  I do hope they don't back off because it would mean a lot of broken hearts.

 

The letter was signed by three different committee chairmen.  And the article then goes to remind the readers of elementary math.  Zero times three still equals zero.  LOL

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not at all.

 

Let’s wait and see what comes out of the ongoing investigation.

 

The list of Trump’s crimes it is revealing grows by the day. He’s now helpfully committing crimes in plain sight.

 

 

Chomper, read the article from the Hill which I posted.  There is no ongoing investigation (inquiry).  It's still sitting at the starting gate waiting for Pelosi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, candide said:

He said "As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

 

So he objected to someone who raised the issue of of withholding security assistance. If the subject of the previous call had been "on which side of the platform should we put the US flag?", he would not have said "it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign."

I still wouldn't be so presumptive.  People can be confused for a very long time before something finally gets them to understand that they've been confused.  I see it happen all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chomper Higgot Star Member

Chomper Higgot

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, read the article from the Hill which I posted.  There is no ongoing investigation (inquiry).  It's still sitting at the starting gate waiting for Pelosi.

You can call it what you like or not, Congress is now exposing Trump’s crimes with witnesses, with evidence and with corroboration provided by Trump himself.

 

Republicans in both houses have already started stepping away from Trump, he has a small window of opportunity to cut a deal.

 

He’ll waste It ranting to his dwindling base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Becker Senior Member

Becker

Posted
Posted

Link: Fox News' Tucker Carlson turns on Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate political rival Joe Biden: ‘There’s no way to spin this’

 

"Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden,” he said.

“Some Republicans are trying, but there’s no way to spin this as a good idea.”

 

Oooh, that must hurt the base Trump supporters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You can call it what you like or not, Congress is now exposing Trump’s crimes with witnesses, with evidence and with corroboration provided by Trump himself.

 

Republicans in both houses have already started stepping away from Trump, he has a small window of opportunity to cut a deal.

 

He’ll waste It ranting to his dwindling base.

Chomper, think for a moment.  Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas.  Why did they use a letter rather subpoena Pompeo?  If they issued a subpoena then it would most definitely go to court.  Once in court they would have to defend charges that don't exist.  But they have to appease the sheep so they use a letter instead.

 

Now it's also been pointed out that the Dems may be trying to take a play from the Russiagate hoax playbook.  If you can't get him on bona fide charges then get him on obstruction.  I believe Schiff is setting that up with his presser.  He's letting everyone know that they could be faced with obstruction.

 

Republicans in both houses have already started stepping away from Trump, he has a small window of opportunity to cut a deal.

 

LMAO.  A small window of opportunity.  Trump's running the show, my friend.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slip Gold Member

Slip

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Chomper, think for a moment.  Congress has the authority to issue subpoenas.  Why did they use a letter rather subpoena Pompeo?  If they issued a subpoena then it would most definitely go to court.  Once in court they would have to defend charges that don't exist.  But they have to appease the sheep so they use a letter instead.

 

Now it's also been pointed out that the Dems may be trying to take a play from the Russiagate hoax playbook.  If you can't get him on bona fide charges then get him on obstruction.  I believe Schiff is setting that up with his presser.  He's letting everyone know that they could be faced with obstruction.

 

Republicans in both houses have already started stepping away from Trump, he has a small window of opportunity to cut a deal.

 

LMAO.  A small window of opportunity.  Trump's running the show, my friend.

 

Any factual information ends after your first use of the word subpoenas.  After that just spin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tippaporn Star Member

Tippaporn

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Slip said:

Any factual information ends after your first use of the word subpoenas.  After that just spin. 

Not spin, Slip, and I think you know that.  Typical terminology used to discredit someone's rationale.

 

The Dems didn't issue a subpoena to Pompeo.  Why?  They issued a letter.  Why?  What's the difference between the two?  There's very specific reasoning behind the decisions these people make.  So if someone on the outside tries to figure it out and gives their rationale for why then you label it spin.  The only spin going on is you trying to spin my post as spin.  The tactics people use are all so obvious, Slip.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RideJocky Explorer Member

RideJocky

Posted
Posted
You missed the boat already. This has been debunked some time ago. The IMF, the EU, the USA, Ukraine's parliament wanted "the very good prosecutor" to be fired because he was not investigating corruption. The IMF also threatened to block funds in 2016.
Actually, the investigation against Burisma was already closed at that time, and was only reopened after the "very good prosecutor" was fired.
Keep up with the news,


You read different news than I do.

So when’s Nancy calling for a vote?

I’m guessing she won’t.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RideJocky Explorer Member

RideJocky

Posted
Posted
Likely one of the 1st whistle blower's sources who now decides to file as well and make it look like there's more dirt from an entirely different source.


Yes, once it came out that the ruled were changed such that the could expedite the “whistle blower’s” second-hand report they had to scramble...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RideJocky Explorer Member

RideJocky

Posted
Posted
Like in a thread discussing Trump it’s But..but but Trump.

 

That’s odd.

 

 

 

I thought we were in a thread discussing the house “investigating” Trump, isn’t that why all the dems lying came up in the first place?

 

 

But-but-but...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...