< 1 2 3 > 
 
   
 

The Senate Trial

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
23 January 2020 12:23
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 23 January 2020 11:47 AM
Twissel - 23 January 2020 11:36 AM

You deliberately ignore the context of the Biden quote. There is nothing nefarious about it. Nothing at all.

Except that the GAO said, of Trump, that the president cannot withhold money that was voted on by congress to be used for foreign aid. Wasn’t vice president Biden doing exactly that when he threatened to withhold aid if the Ukrainians didn’t fire the corrupt prosecutor? Speaking, as he claimed to be, for the president?

The President CAN, and may have in the past, withheld funds.
But if they do, they have to inform Congress and give a reason.
Trump was told this over and over and ignored this law.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3308
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
23 January 2020 12:31
 
Twissel - 23 January 2020 11:36 AM

You deliberately ignore the context of the Biden quote. There is nothing nefarious about it. Nothing at all.

.

I was clear about the context. His son Hunter Biden got more than $80K/month for doing nothing but being on the Burisma board-of-directors because he was the Vice-president’s son. He confessed this on ABC Interview. Joe wanted the prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma and its dirty dealings. Of course, Joe will leave out the payola to his son in his quote.

Why did you leave out the context if you were so sure of it yourself? Is that because all you know is what CNN told you that there is nothing to see here and move along?

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
23 January 2020 12:48
 
Celal - 23 January 2020 12:31 PM
Twissel - 23 January 2020 11:36 AM

You deliberately ignore the context of the Biden quote. There is nothing nefarious about it. Nothing at all.

.

I was clear about the context. His son Hunter Biden got more than $80K/month for doing nothing but being on the Burisma board-of-directors because he was the Vice-president’s son. He confessed this on ABC Interview. Joe wanted the prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma and its dirty dealings. Of course, Joe will leave out the payola to his son in his quote.

Why did you leave out the context if you were so sure of it yourself? Is that because all you know is what CNN told you that there is nothing to see here and move along?

That’s not the context. But you know that.

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3308
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
23 January 2020 15:02
 
Twissel - 23 January 2020 12:48 PM
Celal - 23 January 2020 12:31 PM
Twissel - 23 January 2020 11:36 AM

You deliberately ignore the context of the Biden quote. There is nothing nefarious about it. Nothing at all.

.

I was clear about the context. His son Hunter Biden got more than $80K/month for doing nothing but being on the Burisma board-of-directors because he was the Vice-president’s son. He confessed this on ABC Interview. Joe wanted the prosecutor fired for investigating Burisma and its dirty dealings. Of course, Joe will leave out the payola to his son in his quote.

Why did you leave out the context if you were so sure of it yourself? Is that because all you know is what CNN told you that there is nothing to see here and move along?

That’s not the context. But you know that.

Hey Twissel,  happy anniversary

What was the context?!

Image Attachments
 
joe.JPG
 
 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
23 January 2020 21:20
 

You might think you have a point, but you have not.
Unlike Trump, Biden was genuinely, demonstrably and transparently fighting Corruption, in particular at Burisma, when he threatened to withhold the funds.

Why doesn’t Barr investigate this, if there was anything illegal going on there?
Why did it have to be Rudi?

Face it, Trump is running a gang of criminals, just like Nixon did, to do harm to his opponents. And he is covering it up.

 
 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  2038
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
24 January 2020 06:14
 

Hey guys, check out how Fox News is covering the impeachment trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0oz3WwbGBY

(hint… on mute, with pillow commercials, and with republican commentary over the live videos)

Stay classy Fox News. Stay classy. And keep your viewers uninformed, LOL.

Ron
PS - I watched several hours of the coverage each day on all 3 networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC and they all ran the proceedings totally uninterrupted, without commercial breaks, and without running biased commentary. The way it should be presented to the public. Not marginalized, edited, and skewed the way Fox covers it.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
24 January 2020 06:31
 

Celal, you are aware what Parans and Fruman are being charged with, right?

 
 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3308
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
24 January 2020 08:24
 

Twissel - did you know FISA Court ruled 2 wiretaps against Trump Campaign were illegal?  Did you know the DOJ says that the FBI under disgraced former Director James Comey should have discontinued its secret surveillance on a member of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election because it had “insufficient predication to establish probable cause.”?

I knew this from the beginning, the system is just catching up. 

Edit: Good rule of thumb - Everything the Dems claim, take that and bet on the opposite to be true. Examples: Collusion with Russians (Untrue per Muller Report, but Dems colluded)

[ Edited: 24 January 2020 09:00 by Celal]
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5305
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
24 January 2020 12:43
 

Do you think the democrat strategy is actually aimed at a conviction? I feel like it has more to do with putting some feet to the fire in anticipation of the election. Trump insists that the proceedings will ultimately guarantee him re election. I think growing public sentiment suggests otherwise.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
25 January 2020 02:23
 
Celal - 24 January 2020 08:24 AM

Twissel - did you know FISA Court ruled 2 wiretaps against Trump Campaign were illegal?  Did you know the DOJ says that the FBI under disgraced former Director James Comey should have discontinued its secret surveillance on a member of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election because it had “insufficient predication to establish probable cause.”?

I knew this from the beginning, the system is just catching up. 

Edit: Good rule of thumb - Everything the Dems claim, take that and bet on the opposite to be true. Examples: Collusion with Russians (Untrue per Muller Report, but Dems colluded)

Again, if what you said was true, why are there only arrests and convictions of Trump cronies?
Is Barr an anti-Trumper?

I know it’s hard to admit you’ve been conned, but boy do you have a cognitive dissonance going.

 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  5305
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
25 January 2020 10:19
 
MrRon - 24 January 2020 06:14 AM

Hey guys, check out how Fox News is covering the impeachment trial:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0oz3WwbGBY

(hint… on mute, with pillow commercials, and with republican commentary over the live videos)

Stay classy Fox News. Stay classy. And keep your viewers uninformed, LOL.

Ron
PS - I watched several hours of the coverage each day on all 3 networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC and they all ran the proceedings totally uninterrupted, without commercial breaks, and without running biased commentary. The way it should be presented to the public. Not marginalized, edited, and skewed the way Fox covers it.

CNN isn’t much better. They hired the guy who does the dramatic voice overs for blockbuster movie previews. It’s truly ridiculous.

 
Celal
 
Avatar
 
 
Celal
Total Posts:  3308
Joined  07-08-2011
 
 
 
25 January 2020 11:17
 
Twissel - 25 January 2020 02:23 AM
Celal - 24 January 2020 08:24 AM

Twissel - did you know FISA Court ruled 2 wiretaps against Trump Campaign were illegal?  Did you know the DOJ says that the FBI under disgraced former Director James Comey should have discontinued its secret surveillance on a member of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election because it had “insufficient predication to establish probable cause.”?

I knew this from the beginning, the system is just catching up. 

Edit: Good rule of thumb - Everything the Dems claim, take that and bet on the opposite to be true. Examples: Collusion with Russians (Untrue per Muller Report, but Dems colluded)

Again, if what you said was true, why are there only arrests and convictions of Trump cronies?
Is Barr an anti-Trumper?

I know it’s hard to admit you’ve been conned, but boy do you have a cognitive dissonance going.

Project much?

“If” ?

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/two-4-warrants-letting-fbi-spy-ex-trump-aide-carter-n1121406

FISA Judge says   FBI misled the court.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/17/fisa-court-rebukes-fbi-over-handling-carter-page-surveillance/2677516001/

Criminal Investigation is ongoing.

 
Twissel
 
Avatar
 
 
Twissel
Total Posts:  3047
Joined  19-01-2015
 
 
 
25 January 2020 19:29
 

There now have been four official investigations into the FISA issue - none have let to any indictments.

Compare that to all the cases against the Trump crew that actually got sentences.

You are clinging to a fantasy - courts and the Dems in the Senate Trial have actual facts on their side.

In the short run, the fantasy can win, but sooner or later, reality catches up.
Try not to be the last to realize that.

 

 

 
 
Nhoj Morley
 
Avatar
 
 
Nhoj Morley
Total Posts:  6538
Joined  22-02-2005
 
 
 
28 January 2020 19:53
 

In the defense round, a toddler’s skills of deception were delivered with law-school pomp. Their chance to deliver a real punch at the Bidens was only a reenactment of a Fox news broadcast. I was expecting more. Not sure why.

Two things are conspicuous in a Perry Mason sort of way.

How did the emphasis and rush placed on the CNN interview/announcement by Zelenski serve our genius corruption-fighting boy scout’s lofty intentions to clean up Ukraine’s crony-system? Scandalous potential aside, Joe went to bully the bullies. To the cronies’ ears, isn’t that like saying you’re bringing down Elliot Ness? Or was some ingenious double-bluff?

If this cleverly conceived rationale of selfless intentions is true, wouldn’t having offered it half a year ago instead of flinging threats and poo, been a good idea?

IMO, it does fall short until the military aid is factored in. Anyone who would go that far to leverage their personal interests cannot be trusted to respect their oath of office.

Many say rabid partisanship is the real problem. I say let’s make an amendment to The Constitution that establishes and defines grounds for impeachment including rabid partisanship, reckless toady-ism, extraneous character-assassination and daily befuddlement. That would light a bi-partisan fire under all of them.

Or take them all down for acting without paying union dues.

 
 
unsmoked
 
Avatar
 
 
unsmoked
Total Posts:  9024
Joined  20-02-2006
 
 
 
29 January 2020 11:59
 
Nhoj Morley - 28 January 2020 07:53 PM

In the defense round, a toddler’s skills of deception were delivered with law-school pomp. Their chance to deliver a real punch at the Bidens was only a reenactment of a Fox news broadcast. I was expecting more. Not sure why.

Two things are conspicuous in a Perry Mason sort of way.

How did the emphasis and rush placed on the CNN interview/announcement by Zelenski serve our genius corruption-fighting boy scout’s lofty intentions to clean up Ukraine’s crony-system? Scandalous potential aside, Joe went to bully the bullies. To the cronies’ ears, isn’t that like saying you’re bringing down Elliot Ness? Or was some ingenious double-bluff?

If this cleverly conceived rationale of selfless intentions is true, wouldn’t having offered it half a year ago instead of flinging threats and poo, been a good idea?

IMO, it does fall short until the military aid is factored in. Anyone who would go that far to leverage their personal interests cannot be trusted to respect their oath of office.

Many say rabid partisanship is the real problem. I say let’s make an amendment to The Constitution that establishes and defines grounds for impeachment including rabid partisanship, reckless toady-ism, extraneous character-assassination and daily befuddlement. That would light a bi-partisan fire under all of them.

Or take them all down for acting without paying union dues.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2020/01/29/harvard-law-professor-warns-senators-call-witnesses-or-face-dictatorship/23911857/

quote:

Tribe described the defense argument being made by Trump’s lawyer Alan Dershowitz as “remarkably absurd and extreme and dangerous.”

“Namely, it doesn’t matter if a president uses the vast powers of his office to shake down an ally and help an adversary in order to get dirt on an enemy and corrupt an election,” he explained.

Tribe also said senators risked “leaving a message to future generations, to future presidents, that any way they want to abuse the power of their office is just fine because Trump got away with it since the ultimate ruling was, ‘so what? It doesn’t matter.’”

“You will harm not only the country today but you will leave a lesson for future presidents that will be terrible to the Republic. It will not be a constitutional democracy but it will be a dictatorship,” he added.

So I implore you, if you are inclined to vote to acquit this president, don’t do it on the ridiculous basis that abuse of power, because it’s not a statutory crime and is rather open-ended, is not a basis to remove. Don’t do it on that basis. Do it perhaps on the basis that after you’ve heard John Bolton and looked at the evidence, you’re just not convinced.”

 

 
 
 < 1 2 3 >