11-5-2019 New Trump bashing Thread for cliff-e(others)
37 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - Nov. 5, 2019, 11:16 p.m.

cliff-e continues to take advantage of  threads dedicated to his trolling and Trump bashing. 

This here is the new one for November.


The previous one got close to a record.

                10-5-2019 New Trump bashing Thread for cliff-e(others)         

   62 responses

                 Started by metmike - Oct. 5, 2019, 7:36 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40447/


If you want to view the older Trump bashing posts go here:


                New Trump Criticizing/bashing Thread for cliff-e(and others)            

                            65 responses |    

                                            Started by metmike - Aug. 22, 2019, 1:16 p.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/37419/


Here is the previous one:

                Trump bashing thread for cliff-e            

                            53 responses |             

                              Started by metmike - Aug. 5, 2019, 1:35 a.m.            

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/36092/



Comments
By TimNew - Nov. 6, 2019, 3:56 a.m.
Like Reply

Notice that the entire case against Trump, in all phases  of the assorted investigations have been based on assumptions and unsubstantiated hearsay. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 6, 2019, 7:55 a.m.
Like Reply

So we're now up to 183 posts on 4 Trump "criticizing" threads started by someone else...seems like a reality subject that continues to live on and can't be wished away. Btw what's (others)? 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2019-11-05/new-testimony-transcripts-paint-fuller-picture-quid-pro-quo

I get a kick out of the "Read the Transcripts" t shirts being worn by Cult 45. Many would like to but they've been hidden and not released yet. All we've seen is a "Memoradum" summary of that infamous phone call.

By metmike - Nov. 6, 2019, 12:49 p.m.
Like Reply

"So we're now up to 183 posts on 4 Trump "criticizing" threads started by someone else...seems like a reality subject that continues to live on and can't be wished away. Btw what's (others)?"


This is why we have it cliff .....glad that you are enjoying yourself so much but to give you a reality check, out of those 183 posts, you made 79 of them and metmike made 70 of them, mostly responding to your posts and setting the threads up.

The rest of Marketforum combined over the 3 month period made 24 posts from these 3 threads. So you made 3  times more posts than everybody else combined.


But I'm quite happy with it. You've not made any personal attacks....just posting links that reinforce your belief system that you know will either be responded to by me or read by others, who apparently prefer me to give the responses based on inconvenient authentic facts  which contradict the MSM spinning and misleading from your links.

Sometimes they make a good point.

But this is fun. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 7, 2019, 5:58 p.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Nov. 8, 2019, 8 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 8, 2019, 10:47 a.m.
Like Reply

Great headlines and win for your side cliff!

AG James Secures Court Order Against Donald J. Trump, Trump Children, And Trump Foundation     

   https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/2019/ag-james-secures-court-order-against-donald-j-trump-trump-children-and-trump


The "illegal" activity was not corruption......it was  IN-experienced people(on his political team) running the foundation not following specific law requirements and protocol required by the state of New York.

One of his violations was to call a campaign event a fund raiser. Though it raised money for good causes and the money went there, this was a violation.

So Trump donates 19,000,0000 to charities with less overhead costs than most charities and the democratic attorney general of NY decides to go after him for numerous technicalities that many hundreds  of charities in this country are violating every year.....with impunity. 

The Trump Foundation was a sham. We have no idea how many other foundations are, too.


https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/11/8/20954089/trump-foundation-lawsuit-attorney-general

"The fact that this one was founded and overseen by a presidential candidate who went on to win the presidency led to huge amounts of scrutiny from the press and the AG’s office. How likely was that to happen, absent Trump’s transition into politics? If there are dozens or hundreds of other foundations doing exactly the same thing, how would any of us know?"

But it would be a real shame if our lesson from the Trump Foundation is just “Trump is bad.” The lesson ought to be, “Foundations can be bad and we don’t have a system in place to hold them accountable.”


And the politically motivated attorney general of NY, decides which one that she wants to go after and for what reasons. 

So, is the world and country a better place after Trump donated 20 million to charities from his unconventional charity that used inexperienced people and his campaign when he should not have?

How many crimes were committed here?

None.  There was no corruption.

But they got the intended outcome. 

BTW, I have worked with half a dozen legit charities over the last 30 years, like the Easter Seals, Rescue Mission, Santa Clothes Club:

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/34791/


There's no doubt that Trump had positive political benefits in mind with this particular charity..........but money raised honestly for good causes is money raised regardless of the level of altruism of the entity raising that money for the good causes. 

Where are the headlines that tell us Trump raised 20,000,000 and where the money went?

By cliff-e - Nov. 9, 2019, 5:19 p.m.
Like Reply

No photo description available.

By metmike - Nov. 11, 2019, 3:42 p.m.
Like Reply

No need to lie cliff. The truth works just fine here! (I take that back, Adam Schiff's lying description of the phone call that he read into the record tells us the truth does NOT matter for the hearings).



As I've been saying, a quid pro quo did not happen by definition. The Ukraine did not conduct an investigation and they got their aid.

It doesn't matter if the dems or others "think" that Trump "wanted" a quid pro quo. It never happened................that should be the end of it. Spin  the phone call however you want but the facts show that a quid pro quo, absolutely did not happen. 

Andrew McCarthy: THIS is the impeachment question every Trump supporter should be prepared to answer

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/impeachment-question-trump-andrew-mccarthy


Is it an impeachable offense?

"That is the question of the hour. On “Fox News Sunday,” Chris Wallace pressed it on Republican Congressman Will Hurd of Texas. It is a question every Republican supporter of President Trump should be prepared to answer. Democrats, by contrast, determined that the president was impeachable before he ever darkened the Oval Office door; it’s not worth asking them since their answer preexisted any real or imagined occasion for posing the question."

"Remember, the Ukrainians got their defense aid – which was in addition to defense aid President Trump was already providing to them, aid that President Obama denied for years, with no objection from Democrats, despite Russian aggression. The Ukrainians did not have to agree to investigate the Bidens to get the aid.

Plus, there would have been nothing wrong with Trump’s conditioning aid to a notoriously corrupt country on its commitment to combat corruption generally; nor would there be any impropriety in the president’s asking Ukraine to assist the Justice Department’s ongoing probe of the origins of the Obama administration’s 2016 Trump-Russia investigation – which appears to have had a Ukrainian component (Ukrainian investigative agencies being pressed by American agencies and Democrats to investigate Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign chairman; Ukrainian officials colluding with the Clinton campaign)."

By cliff-e - Nov. 12, 2019, 8:40 a.m.
Like Reply

Cult 45 cronies fleecing the taxpayers again. The 45 swamp gets deeper and deeper.

http://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-health-contract-funneled-hundreds-100001480.html

By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 6:27 a.m.
Like Reply

Image may contain: 1 person, suit and text

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:52 a.m.
Like Reply

Thanks much cliff!

Look for the democrats to change the quid pro quo verbiage to bribery as  it makes it look like (to the American people) that they discovered something new(bribery) with the hearings.

Also, the desire for impeachment has lost some steam and they need a new element to the scheme to support the fake high crimes narrative. 

Again, there was no investigation done by the Ukraine and  Trump DID release the previously appropriated military aid in September before the deadline and the Ukraine didn't even know anything about this.  So by the legal  and every legit definition there was not and could not have been a quid pro quo.

Quid pro quo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo

In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return.

metmike: One can say that Trump may have wanted a quid pro quo or that he thought about it but the fact is, it didn't happen and those are just opinions(that I would agree with)

You can't prosecute a guy for robbing a bank because he was thinking about it or because witnesses testify that they think that he wanted to rob the bank.......if no banks were robbed.  

So what is the crime for impeaching?

It used to be colluding with Russia, then Obstruction. Then they contrived this whistleblower scheme which is getting great traction. 

Actually, you might have forgotten, the house voted on impeachment 2 years ago for other items. 

               So the point below is clear..........actually its not a point or opinion, its evidence. The dems started working on impeaching Trump from the day he was elected........before they had anything. And the objective was to take anything they can get, spin it into high crimes with convincing sounding narratives and witnesses who disagree with Trumps policies testifying.

                    Trump impeachment vote fails overwhelmingly                           12/06/2017 02:15 PM EST  

                        The measure drew the support of 58 House Democrats.

                

By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:30 p.m.
Like Reply

Flash forward to Oct. and the house votes for impeachment INQUIRY.

http://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/house-impeachment-inquiry-resolution-floor-vote/index.html

http://litigation.findlaw.com/legal-system/presidential-impeachment-the-legal-standard-and-procedure.html

Also...Cult 45 has been whining for transparency during the process. Today there's even more transparency via publicly televised impeachment hearings and Cult 45 is still whining. Go figure.

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:54 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff, keep us posted.

"The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Aha, there's the biggest reason that they changed the verbiage of the charges from quid pro quo to bribery and treason. Thanks!


Maybe you are not aware of this but the secret hearings were done so they could select what testimony and people to use for these public hearings. The didn't want us to hear testimony that contradicted the narrative(that was leaked out every day) so we were not allowed to see ALL the testimony.

We are now seeing democrat selected testimony.  The republicans should get a chance to have witnesses that they select testify.

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2019, 12:59 p.m.
Like Reply

You would think people would be getting bored with all this.  Dems have launched impeachment efforts against every pub president since Ike, with the exception of Ford who had an abbreviated term.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime".  

It appears dems have reduced impeachment proceedings to a cheap campaign tactic, and their loyal followers just lap it up.

 

By GunterK - Nov. 13, 2019, 1:36 p.m.
Like Reply

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 1:42 p.m.
Like Reply

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2019/nov/13/trump-news-today-live-impeachment-hearings-bill-taylor-george-kent-ukraine-democrats-latest-updates


Trump 'cared more about investigations of Biden' than Ukraine policy, says impeachment witness – live

"Bill Taylor says that his staffer overheard Trump asking about ‘investigations’ in Ukraine, during testimony in first day of public impeachment hearing"

So the testimony from this key witness is that, he claims that one of his staffers told him that they overheard Trump asking about investigations in Ukraine.

This is "hearsay". In this particular hearing "hearsay" is clearly allowed. 

Never mind there was zero quid pro quo or evidence that one actually took place. A person told another person who is now telling congress that they heard Trump asking about an investigation.

We already have the whistleblower phone call transcript.......which tells us what we need to know using FACTS. This silly hearsay type testimony is an embarrassment to those using it as evidence, especially the MSM making it part of the headlines in their stories. 

By TimNew - Nov. 13, 2019, 3:25 p.m.
Like Reply

Two phrases we are hearing a lot in the testimony..

"I heard", often based on 2nd or 3rd hand hearsay    ....   and

"In my opinion.."  based on the above referenced hearsay.

When you look up "Kangaroo Court",   this is exactly what you'll see.

Due process does not factor in hearsay or opinion and will result in immediate objections that will be immediately sustained.  Due process involves substantiated fact beyond reasonable doubt.  Being an unpopular president does not disqualify you from these fundamental rights.


And the best part?  The media keeps referring to the testimony with phrases like "Devastating"..    "Earthshattering"...  


By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 7:10 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks Tim1

Funny thing that this all started because of corruption in the Ukraine but what its really showing is MUCH worse corruption in the United States.

No wonder the dems wanted the initial testimony in secret..... so that they could send out false narratives about the testimony to tell us that witnesses were providing "smoking gun" testimony to prove the quid pro quo that never happened as part of a marketing scheme to sell the impeachment to the American people.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/first-public-impeachment-hearing

“Ambassador Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Giuliani was pressing for,” Taylor said, revealing new information from his prior testimony last month. “At the time I gave my deposition on October 22, I was not aware of this information. I am including it for completeness.”

metmike: How could he not be aware of information about  a conversation months ago that he  had personally with Sonland and never mentioned once during his many hours of testimony on October 22? Why didn't he tell the committee in October about Sonland saying this?. That's what he was there for.

Just this fact by itself is very damaging to his credibility. Memory of this would have been pretty dang clear back in October, when he was given hours to tell it. Suddenly remembering it weeks later is almost impossible to believe. 


"The security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigations," he said he was told.

Republicans sought to undercut the Democratic case by saying the Ukraine aid was ultimately released without any of the investigations sought by Trump, arguing that shows no quid pro quo took place.

Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan referenced three separate meetings Ukraine’s president held with U.S. officials, saying there’s no evidence participants discussed the “linkage” of security assistance dollars in return for an investigation of the Bidens. Taylor confirmed that’s the case.

Jordan also got Taylor to acknowledge he’s never met Trump and stressed that Zelensky did not announce the investigations, saying, “Your clear understanding was obviously wrong, because it didn’t happen.”

Republicans were quick to point out that Taylor was not providing first-hand information. At one point, Taylor said, “I don’t know what President or candidate Trump was thinking about the Ukrainians.”

”The White House further argued that Taylor offered "hearsay of hearsay" and accused House Democrats of basing "this entire sham on what amounts to a game of telephone."

"'Meanwhile, during Kent’s testimony, he clarified that while he had raised concerns of a conflict of interest over Hunter Biden’s role on the board of Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings during February 2015, he did not see any effort from U.S. officials to protect that firm from criticism or investigation.

“My concern was that there was the possibility of a perception of a conflict of interest,” Kent said during questioning from Republicans. Kent also said he would like to see Ukraine investigate other accusations involving a corrupt prosecutor and Burisma."

metmike: These guys are supposed to be key witnesses for the democrats to use to  impeach Trump?

Hugh?  

Glad they opened up the hearings so that the false narratives from the secret hearings last month could be exposed like this.

By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 7:35 p.m.
Like Reply



From CNN:

Podcast: Taylor drops a bomb during historic testimony

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-13-19/index.html


clickbate journalism!!!!

https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/42786/



By cliff-e - Nov. 13, 2019, 8:16 p.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:45 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff,

If you read the statement, you read that he stated that Ukraine,  was unaware that the military aid was being withheld until August 29th.

This makes it impossible for it to be a bribe, quid pro quo or whatever you want to call it before August 29th. This means that the July phone call  that the whistle blower complained about and the dems are claiming is proof of the quid pro quo could not have been a bribe or quid pro quo. The Ukraine has also confirmed this in their statements and stated that they felt no pressure.

It can't be a bribe if the person supposedly being bribed didn't know. How is this not crystal clear by now?

The aid was in fact released on September 11th, delayed from what this witness preferred but this was still before the actual deadline.........with no investigation, so the other end of the fake quid pro quo never happened either. 

As this witness testified, he was unaware of the reason that it was released then but it could not have been because of Ukraine agreeing to an investigation............because they never agreed to do an investigation.

Supposedly, according to CNN/NYT, the Ukraine was on the verge of announcing an investigation into Biden.........on CNN.   Right, and President Obama/H.Clinton always contact FOX news for personal interviews with breaking news to get the best coverage. 

CNN clearly would have been the WORST pick imaginable, as they are one of the "Bidens did nothing wrong" channels. 


‘SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE’

Dems’ Impeachment Hearing Fear: Another Dud Like Mueller

https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-trump-impeachment-public-hearing-plan-dont-repeat-mueller-mistakes

Within the Democratic caucus, the sense that they struck out on Mueller is only fueling their already considerable desire to get this round right. “It’s a ‘go big or go home’ mind-set,” said one House Democratic aide. “This is our shot—we shouldn’t blow it and have it be like Mueller.”

A second Democratic aide put it another way: “This is a second chance, a second bite at the apple.” 


metmike: If today's disaster is any indicator, this one is headed in the same direction as the Mueller investigation and testimony debacle.  

The strangest thing is that half the country and MSM accept unlimited, constant investigations into President Trump as if its normal.......even when they come up empty or end up being an embarrassment.  Let's just go on to the next one. 

With all these investigations, you would have thought by now they would have found an impeachable offense ............if there was one.

Had Trump colluded with Russia(as we were told for 2.5 years), he should have been removed from office ASAP.

I don't think that Trump will be re elected with so many enemies and hatred for him and round the clock negative publicity/attacks by the MSM but the dems keep doing and saying such horrible things that if Americans didn't hate Trump so much, he would win by a landslide. The devious tactics and dishonesty  is off the charts. Since the MSM, with their yellow jouralism is part of it, there is nobody to hold them accountable. 

If he does win in 2020. There's a good chance that the dems will try to impeach him again during his 2nd term with another scheme like this that they will try to sell to Americans. 

Very amusing but sad. I feel bad for America. 

By GunterK - Nov. 13, 2019, 10:57 p.m.
Like Reply

metmike, your points are well taken,,, and they are facts. But this is not what the American public hears on TV

Sometimes I wonder.... is Josef Goebbels really dead, or did they bring him over with Operation Paperclip, to work for the Deep State.

By TimNew - Nov. 14, 2019, 3:33 a.m.
Like Reply

Unless, in the unlikely event the dems are saving the best for last, this is not going to turn out well for them. Even the LA Times agrees with me. The dems are not getting close to proof beyond reasonable doubt. They  aren't even going beyond unreasonable doubt.

Of course, when it all falls apart, Schiff, Pelosi, et. al. will spin it as a partisan miscarriage of justice.  They'll be right,of course,  but  for the wrong reasons.


https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-11-13/impeachment-hearings-donald-trump-adam-schiff-ukraine?fbclid=IwAR0mhfGUHmcFvy-TTicgcuULPZCR7cwFC8bzWG6qAujeygUHblOmrO6aQAM


"Day 1 of the public House impeachment hearings on President Trump is in the books, and nothing that happened will move public opinion in a meaningful way. The folks who have wanted to impeach Trump since he won the presidency still do, and the folks who don’t still don’t.

In other words, it’s a lost day for Democrats.

The burden of proof is on Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Burbank) to do more than secure impeachment, which is all but certain. Their job is to conduct these hearings in a way that moves public opinion to the point that the Senate will convict the president. That means giving Republican senators something that changes their impression of Trump’s conduct of Ukraine foreign policy. What’s alleged may make many members of the GOP uncomfortable, but it doesn’t come remotely close to requiring that the president be removed from office.

The opening-day witnesses — diplomatic officials Bill Taylor and George Kent — testified professionally and with honor, but they failed to deliver a made-for-TV gotcha. Rather, they simply reiterated that they had no firsthand knowledge of the president’s interactions and had not had conversations with the president directly."

By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 8:50 p.m.
Like Reply

Even impeachment ‘rehearsal’ hearings won’t help Dems


https://nypost.com/2019/11/14/even-impeachment-rehearsal-hearings-wont-help-dems/

"Democrats must have learned from the disastrous public hearings they’ve held in their attempt to impeach President Trump: Now, apparently, their witnesses must audition first behind closed doors before they go live before the TV cameras.

The tryout process follows spectacular backfires during earlier Dem hearings that were supposed to sway public opinion toward impeaching the president but only made Democrats look foolish. Trouble is, even rehearsals don’t seem to help: The Taylor-Kent show turned out to be a huge bore-a-thon, failing to produce any firsthand evidence to warrant impeaching the president.

What a farce. Democrats are desperate to get the public behind them. Yet no matter how many auditions they hold, it’s no substitute for hard evidence."


By metmike - Nov. 14, 2019, 9:14 p.m.
Like Reply

This story and news completely obliterates the democratic fake quid pro quo narrative. It's over. 

The longer the charade goes on in the form of hearings, the more the democrats have to lie and distort realities to manufacturer something that clearly did not happen according to the ones on the other end..........which is what should matter the most.

There was no investigation of Biden, and the money was released before the deadline. 

The MSM and dems will keep up their sensationizing and attempts to destroy President Trump over this but most of the facts are out there now. People looking at just the facts or with a few objective brain cells, will see this as a witch hunt by corrupt people. 


U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

Trump and his allies are accused by Democrat opponents of freezing nearly $400 million in security aid to Ukraine to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Biden, Trump’s main rival for the 2020 presidential race. 

Trump calls the inquiry a witch hunt. 

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."

By TimNew - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:17 a.m.
Like Reply

Seems we've really hijacked this thread supposedly dedicated to "Trump Bashing". But then, most Trump bashing does not stand up well to actual facts.

By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 7:40 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 15, 2019, 12:44 p.m.
Like Reply

Your MSM story: "Soon after that, Gordon Sondland, Trump's ambassador to the European Union and a close ally of the president, told top Ukrainian officials their aid likely wouldn't be released unless they launched Trump's politically motivated investigations."


The actual statement from top Ukrainian officials completely contradicts that:

U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."


Hmmmm. Who to believe. The MSM and dems telling us what happened to the Urainians or the actual Ukrainians telling us what happened to them from being there and experiencing it.


Let's see. Which source(s) have proven to be objective and non partisan and reliable and would treat Trump fairly and which source(s) would not.

Who to believe. Such a tough choice.(-:

It's always possible that the Ukrainians are covering for Trump........except for the fact that the aid WAS released in early September and there was no investigation, so both ends of the quid quo pro never happened. 

By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:35 p.m.
Like Reply
By cliff-e - Nov. 15, 2019, 5:43 p.m.
Like Reply

The whistle was blown before the aid was released because they got caught attempting to commit a crime and thought they could just sweep the issue under the rug. Here's the timeline.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/testimony-and-texts-how-the-trump-ukraine-allegations-fit-together-in-a-timeline/ar-BBWOmi4?li=BBnb7Kz

Also...I keep hearing this..."The Ukrainians got the aid and there was no investigation so everything's fine and dandy" yada yada yada. The legal problem with that argument is that there was a deliberate attempt to commit a crime.

http://criminallaw.uslegal.com/incohate-crimes/attempt/

By metmike - Nov. 15, 2019, 6:40 p.m.
Like Reply

Sorry for others here of the need to keep repeating the same thing.


U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-ukraine/us-envoy-sondland-did-not-link-biden-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that U.S. ambassador Gordon Sondland did not explicitly link military aid to Kiev with opening an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Interfax Ukraine reported.  

“Ambassador Sondland did not tell us, and certainly did not tell me, about a connection between the assistance and the investigations. You should ask him,” Prystaiko said about Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union."


Let's use some common sense, critical thinking here. An example that might help you. 

A person does not get charged with the crime of robbing a bank because people testify that they heard him say that he wanted to rob a particular bank(or in this case, people testify that somebody else told them that they heard him saying that he wanted to rob that bank). If the people running the bank say that they did not get robbed and he is one of their best customers, there is no crime of robbing the bank.  

In addition, if a person was to rob a bank, they would not notify the bank before hand.that would not be part of the crime.  However, with bribery and quid pro quo, the other party MUST be notified and acknowledge this because that is the essence of the act. The party that was supposed to have been bribed, keeps telling us they felt no pressure and make statements like those above that are being completely ignored.

Ukrainian president says he felt no pressure on his phone call with Trump

https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/sports/ukrainian-president-says-he-felt-no-pressure-on-his-phone-call-with-trump/vi-BBWMBz5



Let me guess, anybody that says anything that backs up Trump is just one of his puppets and is lying to protect him, so we should never believe anything anybody says if it's contradicts the false narratives we are being fed about Trump by the democrats and MSM.

We got this for 2.5 years with the Mueller investigation...........then the evidence showed that Trump was innocent. But that wasn't enough, they got Mueller to testify, hoping they could get some dirt on Trump in that hearing...........and it backfired, exposing them in increasingly  embarrassing fashion........ because there was no any evidence of a crime in that investigation.........but that didn't even slow down his enemies.

This is their MO. It's just the next play, using the same playbook. If they hadn't already been busted doing the same thing for years, we might give them more benefit of the doubt.

By cliff-e - Nov. 16, 2019, 7:30 a.m.
Like Reply

David Holmes testifies late yesterday afternoon.

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2019/11/15/the-opening-statement-of-david-holmes-the-career-foreign-service-officer-assigned-as-the-political-officer-at-us-embassy-kyiv/

More witnesses and testimony forthcoming despite "witness tampering" and "witness intimidation" which are also impeachable offenses.

By TimNew - Nov. 16, 2019, 7:51 a.m.
Like Reply

If there was any, the only witness tampering and/or intimidation was committed by Schiff.   Do you think he should be impeached or are you among those who feel laws only apply to pubs?

Trump expressing his opinion was neither except in the eyes of the blatantly biased.

By metmike - Nov. 16, 2019, 9:04 a.m.
Like Reply

When people testify to different contradicting things, what does the law do?

Believe only one side and discard the rest?

The law and logical/critical thinking requires that we look at the evidence.

There was no investigation done by the Ukraine.

The money was released before the deadlines.

The ones that were the victims of the "bribery" (the new buzz crime used in the marketing scheme to sell the American people) says they were not pressured and there was no connection with the money.


Did Trump want an investigation and  ask for the Ukraine to do an investigation? 

Of course he did. We have the transcript of the phone call.......let's use that.

The evidence to link it to the aid is completely tied statements by witnessed that contradict the facts and statements by more important people...........not hearsay or otherwise. 

All the most important evidence and the statements of the ones from the Urkaine indicate that this is a witchhunt.


Oddest thing is that the evidence and facts surrounding Biden and his son are the ones that look most compelling and at the least, involved nepotism with certainty. Instead  of doing a legit investigation of that, which is what Trump wanted, we instead investigatie the person who wanted that investigation.

Nepotism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism

Nepotism is the granting of jobs to one's  relatives or friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Nepotism is the act of using one's power to secure better jobs or unfair advantages for a family member when they may not have the right skill, experience or motivation compared to others.

By cliff-e - Nov. 18, 2019, 7:34 a.m.
Like Reply
By metmike - Nov. 18, 2019, 8:52 p.m.
Like Reply

Thanks cliff!


Since you have a picture of him accusing/claiming that he is whining. Let's actually hear what the man said and see if it was whining:

"Jim Jordan grills Dems’ ‘star witness’ Taylor in impeachment hearing"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJcv2pQ1PsU


After listening to Jim Jordan speak, which version of whining below does his questioning fall under?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/whining

                   

verb (used without object),  whined, whin·ing.

1. to utter a low, usually nasal, complaining cry or sound, as from uneasiness, discontent, peevishness, etc.: The puppies were whining from hunger.
2. to snivel or complain in a peevish, self-pitying way: He is always whining about his problems.

verb (used with object),  whined, whin·ing.

3. to utter with or as if with a whine: I whined my litany of complaints.

noun

4. a whining utterance, sound, or
5.  tone.a feeble, peevish complaint.


Maybe you should replace whining with one of these words, which is what he was actually doing(despite the MSM's distorted yellow journalism reporting of what happened)

https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/fact-finding

         

Synonyms for fact-finding

Yellow journalism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

By cliff-e - Nov. 19, 2019, 8:48 a.m.
Like Reply