Troll posts removed.

2 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I reject your premise that Shokin was universally seen as corrupt. In fact, it appears it was the Obama regime that was behind the firing the whole time. Furthermore, a bunch of corrupt governments all saying some other guy is corrupt isn't very impressive.

 

As far as illicit: I don't recall using the term. Thus, I am puzzled as to your attention to it in context of a response to me.

 

As for the "are you saying" line? I'm saying what I said, not what you'd like to say I said.

 

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/02/donald-trump-joe-biden-hunter-biden-baseless-claim-corrupt-column/3832174002/

 

“after Shokin was elevated to the post of prosecutor general, every member of the Group of Seven leading industrial nations, including the U.S. government, along with the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, began agitating to get rid of him.”

 

ok... you got me. “Universally” was a bad choice of words. You disagree, for example. However, the leaders of the industrialized free world, including the divided states, on whoms behalf Biden was acting, see things differently to you.

 

Regards my use of “illicit”... per my earlier, which you bounced off, corruption (which you accuse Biden of) includes illicit behavior, and my post included the question “in what way did Biden personally or illicitly benefit?” .... I introduced it in the definition of corruption... you quoted that. That’s the context.... If nothing illicit was achieved, perhaps nothing corrupt happened, in referring to the definition of corruption

 

Regards my inserting “are you saying?”, I asked this not because I wish to control your narrative, but rather, because all you said was “ he benefited because he protected his son from an ongoing investigation”.... which doesn’t really explain how he benefited, and which is also an incorrect statement (or repeated lie), as there was no ongoing investigation

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viktor-shokin-ukraine-prosecutor-trump-biden-hunter-joe-investigation-impeachment-a9147001.html

“Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out.”

 

further... the VP did not have the authority to withhold the 1 billion... when it was pointed out that only the president had the authority, Biden is quoted (a snippet excluded by the trumps followers) as saying “call him”... given that little gem, the corruption you ascribe to Biden, should actually be pinned on Obama, although and again, when looking at the definition of corruption, the boxes still remain unticked

14 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

She's been doing the same thing Democrats have been doing for years, trying to GET TRUMP. Putting lipstick on the pig and now calling it an impeachment inquiry doesn't make it so. A vote would, but she's afraid to hold a vote for some reason

She is not calling for a vote because 31 of her comrades would be out of the job:)

Just at about 1 min

https://www.facebook.com/TippingPointonOAN/videos/522493021656720/

 

17 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

What's wrong with making money from Russians? What's wrong with doing a real estate deal in Moscow? What's wrong with wanting to be friends with Russia? I seem to recall another US politician who was $145 million friendly with Russia.

 

As for your assertion about a discredited conspiracy theory, that is flat out FALSE.

What's wrong with a business person doing legal business making money from Russia?  Nothing.  What's wrong with a politician running for office on a "let's be friends with Russia" and lying about having not business dealings with Russia?  Plenty.  What's wrong with betraying US allies and principles to accommodate Russia?  If you don't understand, there's no point in explaining.

 

Until you provide evidence to support the conspiracy theories about the Democratic Party server being in Ukraine or show an instance of Joe Biden using his position as VP to benefit Hunter Biden in his dealings in Ukraine, they remain conspiracy theories.

9 hours ago, Thomas J said:

MRLS2005 if this is what you consider "lawfully"  you should be a lawyer for the mafia. 
 

 

 

9 hours ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This video should be a sticky on top of every Ukraine related thread. THIS is corruption, 100% blatant and obvious. 

Why do people keep referencing this video?  Everyone now knows that Joe Biden successfully implemented US policy and had an incompetent Ukraine prosecutor removed, and was proud of the fact.

3 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

I reject your premise that Shokin was universally seen as corrupt. In fact, it appears it was the Obama regime that was behind the firing the whole time. Furthermore, a bunch of corrupt governments all saying some other guy is corrupt isn't very impressive.

 

As far as illicit: I don't recall using the term. Thus, I am puzzled as to your attention to it in context of a response to me.

 

As for the "are you saying" line? I'm saying what I said, not what you'd like to say I said.

 

 

Do you also reject the premise that Shokin was incompetent and that corruption flourished while he was prosecutor?

 

Regarding "a bunch of corrupt governments all saying some other guy is corrupt isn't very impressive.", does this mean we shouldn't believe Trump, who is obviously corrupt, when he says there is a problem with corruption in Ukraine?

9 hours ago, Crazy Alex said:

Wow, someone is thinking about impeachment. Not very impressive, given Democrats have been obsessing over impeachment talk for nearly three years. And given they won't even hold an impeachment inquiry vote, there's no reason to believe they will ever impeach. Just watch. We'll hear excuses and more excuses, stuff like "the scope of crimes is so large", and other blathering.

It's all about trying to make the undecided voters think there is some there there, when IMO there isn't.

I don't expect any more than months more of the same, right up to the election.

 

An actual impeachment trial in the senate would bring out some interesting things about the Dems, IMO, that they would not like exposed.

...Trump, who is obviously corrupt...

It’s only obvious to the same people that have been trying to get him out of office since he was elected.

32 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

It’s only obvious to the same people that have been trying to get him out of office since he was elected.

I haven't done anything to try to get him out of office but I still think that he is a scumbag, a crook, corrupt, a racist, a white nationalist, a psychopath and many other things.  I also think that he will be impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate unless a good portion of the GOP Senators finally grow some gonads and put the constitution first. I do hope and think that "WE the People" will replace him at the ballot box.

1 minute ago, wayned said:

I haven't done anything to try to get him out of office but I still think that he is a scumbag, a crook, corrupt, a racist, a white nationalist, a psychopath and many other things.  I also think that he will be impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate unless a good portion of the GOP Senators finally grow some gonads and put the constitution first. I do hope and think that "WE the People" will replace him at the ballot box.

He will not be anything, as Polosi is not even calling for a vote and then there is also this https://www.oann.com/house-republicans-call-for-rep-schiff-to-resign/

 

So get ready for another 4 years of Trump

3 minutes ago, wayned said:

unless a good portion of the GOP Senators finally grow some gonads

 

Perhaps they actually don't think what Trump did meets the criteria for a high crime or misdemeanour.

Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one.

7 minutes ago, wayned said:

I do hope and think that "WE the People" will replace him at the ballot box.

The coasts don't win when the entire middle America votes against them.

37 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

Perhaps they actually don't think what Trump did meets the criteria for a high crime or misdemeanour.

Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one.

You just don't get it!  There doesn't have to be a vote in the House to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry.  If the results of the investigation indicates that Trump committed "impeachable" acts which, by definition do not have to be criminal offences, then the House will draw up Articles of Impeachment.  Then Pelosi has to hold a vote in the House to pass those articles on to the Senate and they only have to be approved by a simple majority, not 3/4 of the House.  Then, and only then" does Pelosi have to gold a vote.  The House investigation  is like a " grand jury".

 

If the Articles are approved by the House they are then passed on to the Senate which will conduct the trial.  In order to be convicted and removed from office the jury, the entire Senate, 2/3 of the Senate must convict him.  There is no other penalties involved other than removal from office, but Federal Prosecutors might be lined up at the door to serve criminal indictments once he passes through

 

If you are going to continue to support him then "so be it", but get your facts straight.

Once it gets to the Senate it becomes fuzzy. There are no set rules for the trial, the Senate makes up the rules and it's unclear to me how that process works.  One thing that could happen is that, before any evidence is heard, Massacre Mitch could hold a vote to dismiss the case which only takes a simple majority to do and it could all end right there since The GOP has the majority.  I suspect that McConnell will try that and hope that no more than three of the GOP jump ship.

 

Now you tell me exactly where I am wrong!

I haven't done anything to try to get him out of office but I still think that he is a scumbag, a crook, corrupt, a racist, a white nationalist, a psychopath and many other things.

If I believed like you I would feel morally obligated to do all I could to get him out of office.

Fortunately, I live on planet Earth, an can still remember how the left all loved him before he saved the planet from Hillary.

That said, I could live with his VP running as an incumbent against any of the anti-ists the dems are running

5 hours ago, wayned said:

You just don't get it!  There doesn't have to be a vote in the House to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry.  If the results of the investigation indicates that Trump committed "impeachable" acts which, by definition do not have to be criminal offences, then the House will draw up Articles of Impeachment.  Then Pelosi has to hold a vote in the House to pass those articles on to the Senate and they only have to be approved by a simple majority, not 3/4 of the House.  Then, and only then" does Pelosi have to gold a vote.  The House investigation  is like a " grand jury".

 

If the Articles are approved by the House they are then passed on to the Senate which will conduct the trial.  In order to be convicted and removed from office the jury, the entire Senate, 2/3 of the Senate must convict him.  There is no other penalties involved other than removal from office, but Federal Prosecutors might be lined up at the door to serve criminal indictments once he passes through

 

If you are going to continue to support him then "so be it", but get your facts straight.

The context was the senate vote, not the house vote. 

If you read the quote from wayned, I fail to see how you didn't understand that

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The context was the senate vote, not the house vote. 

If you read the quote from wayned, I fail to see how you didn't understand that

I am wayned and you said:

 

" Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one. "

 

That was what I was responding to and explained the whole procedure.

 

I fail to see how you didn't understand that!

Well here we are, nearly one month after this thread started. People were on the edge of their seats back then, nobody is any more. What else has happened in this time? Biden sr and jr have both been shown to be corrupt. Sn will never have any political position again. Jr resigned from all foreign positions gained through his dad. Pelosi has been shown to be even more unhinged than we thought. Schiff has been shown to be a liar and a fantasist. Trump sails on majestically through the muck fling without even a stain on his shirt. Bravo DT!

1 hour ago, TopDeadSenter said:

Well here we are, nearly one month after this thread started. People were on the edge of their seats back then, nobody is any more. What else has happened in this time? Biden sr and jr have both been shown to be corrupt. Sn will never have any political position again. Jr resigned from all foreign positions gained through his dad. Pelosi has been shown to be even more unhinged than we thought. Schiff has been shown to be a liar and a fantasist. Trump sails on majestically through the muck fling without even a stain on his shirt. Bravo DT!

And bravo Giuliani 

Some troll posts and replies have been removed. 

14 hours ago, wayned said:

I am wayned and you said:

 

" Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one. "

 

That was what I was responding to and explained the whole procedure.

 

I fail to see how you didn't understand that!

My post was in two parts. The first part was about a vote in the senate, and the second was pointing out that before the senate can vote the house has to vote to impeach.

 

Nothing about a vote for an inquiry.

 

I do think it hilarious the way the dems moan on about how they could convict him if only he would cooperate.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Anyway, there has to be a vote in the house first and Nancy seems rather reticent about having one. "

There's nothing to vote on.  She can't call for a vote until the Articles of Impeachment are drawn up by the committee and presented to the floor.  The articles have not been drawn up yet and  will not be drawn up until there is sufficient evidence that he has committed  impeachable offences.  There may never be a vote if the investigation determines that there is insufficient evidence.

 

I think that he is a scumbag but that's most likely not an impeachable offence or there would be a long list!

There's nothing to vote on.  She can't call for a vote until the Articles of Impeachment are drawn up by the committee and presented to the floor.  The articles have not been drawn up yet and  will not be drawn up until there is sufficient evidence that he has committed  impeachable offences.  There may never be a vote if the investigation determines that there is insufficient evidence.   I think that he is a scumbag but that's most likely not an impeachable offence or there would be a long list!   

 

 

There will be articles.He will be impeached in the house.Conviction in the senate is still very unlikely.

 

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/impeachment-is-the-lesser-evil/2019/10/20/77bd99dc-f1b8-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html 

 

Why we should impeach and remove President Trump

 

No one has worked more aggressively to trigger impeachment than the president. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, wayned said:

There's nothing to vote on.  She can't call for a vote until the Articles of Impeachment are drawn up by the committee and presented to the floor.  The articles have not been drawn up yet and  will not be drawn up until there is sufficient evidence that he has committed  impeachable offences.  There may never be a vote if the investigation determines that there is insufficient evidence.

 

I think that he is a scumbag but that's most likely not an impeachable offence or there would be a long list!

I am sure that the left wing will do their best to make wrongthink an impeachable offense if they ever get back in power.

7 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

I am sure that the left wing will do their best to make wrongthink an impeachable offense if they ever get back in power.

Well just following the constitution would be a nice change.

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

I do think it hilarious the way the dems moan on about how they could convict him if only he would cooperate.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Yeah, how dare them pesky dems expect him to follow the law and not obstruct justice.

Just now, Sujo said:

Well just following the constitution would be a nice change.

Without those nasty first two amendments though, right?

3 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Well just following the constitution would be a nice change.

If he would just read the constitution would be a nice change.  

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

Without those nasty first two amendments though, right?

The First Amendment, the one guaranteeing freedom of the press?  Yeah, Trump considers that a really nasty one.