Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
He just played the card he always does when in trouble. "Expect a China deal sooner than later".
Your personal standard of a smoking gun has no relationship to any standard of proof found in law. Even under the no reasonable doubt standard, the trier of fact is entitled to make any reasonable inference from the evidence presented.So I just saw a Dem representative paraphrasing the conversation between Trump and Zelensky. NO, NO, NO. That's not how this should work. If you have something so damning, read it direct from the transcript. Bias spin should not and CANNOT be the standard to impeach with. That's what all the Dems here, (this forum included) are doing. Interpreting, spinning, paraphrasing, implying. That's just not good enough. Find a damn smoking gun or drop this nonsense.
I think many would disagree with you on that.It doesn’t really matter what his intentions are because there is no quid pro quo, he only asks Zelensky to find the truth, he invokes the proper channels of working through the DOJ, and the case involves the public admission of Joe Biden about extorting Ukraine - which is also a legitimate foreign relationship issue.
Honorable intentions or not, the ask is very reasonable, appropriate and ethical.
Et faciens regressus.stupid latin.
There is a reason its a dead language.
Oh, bull####.And that's not because I'm a fan of Trump. I just realize what this sets up for the future.
The family had a lot of buffers.That entire transcript reads like a mob boss communicating a directive that a third party carry out a hit.
And the elipsis between the last two sentences indicates that something was omitted there. I'd bet money that the whistleblower will fill in that gap and it won't be pretty for the POTUS.These are consecutive sentences by the President of the United States.
Well, that reporter you just were discussing for one. And... uh... the President. Probably Rudy. That's three sources right there. Run the story!NY Post questions journalistic integrity of WaPo and NYT . "
" Reports have said Biden used his VP position to demand that the inquiry be dropped and the prosecutor involved fired, or America would withhold aid." nice journalism here. Reports from whom?
Nobody is asking for Ukraine to be banned from investigating things happening in their country.While I don’t think Trump should be asking for the investigation we can’t exactly ban other countries from their own investigations.
Yeah, I don't know if that's just "President trailed off and started a new sentence" or a missing statement. It really doesn't matter. There's no telling what will actually happen, but this is spectacular corruption.And the elipsis between the last two sentences indicates that something was omitted there. I'd bet money that the whistleblower will fill in that gap and it won't be pretty for the POTUS.
This is odd to me. He directly asked a foreign govt to investigate Biden. I too was shocked when I read that and that it was released directly from the WH. I mean, at this point the only thing their base believes is directly what he says "Here's the transcript, no quid pro quo" and people believe it, despite what's in it.The difficult part, in my estimation, was going to be showing that Trump specifically asked for Joe Biden to be re-investigated, rather than for the situation to be investigated or for "Biden" to be investigated where he could say he meant Hunter. And of course I never anticipated he'd bring Mueller and the Russia investigation into it.
Just saying your prediction rate on this subject is pretty mehThis makes me feel better. You still don't know what a prediction is.
I am getting tired of eating these nothing burgers, maybe we can move on to nothing tacos?I don't care what side you're on, can we please agree to stop ####### saying nothing burger?
The more I read it, yes perhaps you are right. My point was that the two sides read things totally differently. One with an "honorable voice" and one with a "nefarious voice". But in this case, it seems that he's clearly asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. Not much ambiguity there.This is wrong. The lines themselves are impeachable.
Or he could still be obsessed with the Russian collusion issue & wants Bidens son to be put under as much scrutiny as his family was. I remember hearing the scrutiny about that deal years ago when it happened, and thought it looked bad then. I'm actually kind of hoping that Biden has to drop out because of this so Warren can get the spotlight.This can’t be stressed enough.
Yes, I read what you wrote. My response was correctly typed based on it.Just saying your prediction rate on this subject is pretty meh
If Joe Biden committed a crime, then our own DOJ should be the one to handle that investigation.Of course not. I never said anything about banning countries from doing something, so I'm not sure why you would even bring it up.
“I would like to get to the bottom of it” “if you can look into it” is generally synonymousWhere does he mention "truth" to Zelensky? I don't see that word used by Trump. Or are you suggesting he doesn't have to say that because it's implied?
Because it's campaign related.I’m curious why Trump asked Ukraine to meet with his personal attorney (Rudy) rather than the state department. That seems a little odd. Why is his personal attorney getting involved in international affairs?
Being condescended to is a natural consequence of saying stupid #### about subjects you don’t understand. There’s a pretty simple remedy for that.No dude I love being lawyersplained about the GC to the DIA to the 21-Niner statutes and insulted as a redditor, it’s great when lawyers toot their own horns on here, please keep doing it
China is getting rich(er) at our expense.He just played the card he always does when in trouble. "Expect a China deal sooner than later".
No it isn't, and it doesn't matter. The President asked a foreign leader to meet with his personal lawyer to discuss trying to investigate a political opponent.“I would like to get to the bottom of it” “if you can look into it” is generally synonymous
They were only a handful of votes holding it up prior. All it took was a nudge.Think about this time yesterday. People were remarking how fast this was developing. The assumption was that with all these Congressional men and women jumping in so rapidly to support the impeachment inquiry that the evidence must be crystal clear. Turns out it was just exuberance. They jumped without even seeing evidence. That's so indescribably dangerous. This country has to start operating with it's head and not it's wants and wishes.
Many democratic congressman were quetioned why they supported impeaching Trump yesterday and they said they didn't like his policies. That is not what impeachment was for and a dangerous precedent to set.Think about this time yesterday. People were remarking how fast this was developing. The assumption was that with all these Congressional men and women jumping in so rapidly to support the impeachment inquiry that the evidence must be crystal clear. Turns out it was just exuberance. They jumped without even seeing evidence. That's so indescribably dangerous. This country has to start operating with it's head and not it's wants and wishes.
I’m curious why Trump asked Ukraine to meet with his personal attorney (Rudy) rather than the state department. That seems a little odd. Why is his personal attorney getting involved in international affairs?
I've asked Trump followers this same question a few times, @Mr Anonymous most recently. Crickets. I'd like to hear a benign reason for involving his personal attorney in a foreign policy matter if it has nothing to do with Trump's campaign.Because it's campaign related.
Scorpion and the frog.This will ultimately help Trump because it will sink Biden. Trump will get to face off agaisnt the socialist Warren and likely steamroll her.
Forgot the part about the attorney general?No it isn't, and it doesn't matter. The President asked a foreign leader to meet with his personal lawyer to discuss trying to investigate a political opponent.
I don’t know how to make this any clearer. The memorandum of conversation has far more explicit evidence of impeachable conduct than even the most enthusiastic Democrats anticipated yesterday. Not one Democrat on the Hill is disappointed or underwhelmed. Ok, let’s exclude Tulsi Gabbard.Think about this time yesterday. People were remarking how fast this was developing. The assumption was that with all these Congressional men and women jumping in so rapidly to support the impeachment inquiry that the evidence must be crystal clear. Turns out it was just exuberance. They jumped without even seeing evidence. That's so indescribably dangerous. This country has to start operating with it's head and not it's wants and wishes.
come onMeanwhile, the 4D Chess playing White House mistakenly sent out their party talking points to Democratic House members via email.
And didn’t the state department ask Giuliani to reach out?Forgot the part about the attorney general?
Lets not forget that said personal lawyer has said he was meeting with Ukrainians to "help his client":No it isn't, and it doesn't matter. The President asked a foreign leader to meet with his personal lawyer to discuss trying to investigate a political opponent.
There is enough evidence in that transcript alone for Democrats to impeach. So any danger that it would be a nothing burger is already alleviated.Think about this time yesterday. People were remarking how fast this was developing. The assumption was that with all these Congressional men and women jumping in so rapidly to support the impeachment inquiry that the evidence must be crystal clear. Turns out it was just exuberance. They jumped without even seeing evidence. That's so indescribably dangerous. This country has to start operating with it's head and not it's wants and wishes.
Seems unlikely...And didn’t the state department ask Giuliani to reach out?
That makes it worse. You realize that, don't you?Forgot the part about the attorney general?No it isn't, and it doesn't matter. The President asked a foreign leader to meet with his personal lawyer to discuss trying to investigate a political opponent.
Sorry, your actual response is that a section of the government that works under the President called and asked the President's lawyer to take a call from a foreign leader (as Giuliani and Giuliani alone claims) and you think that's evidence that this isn't corruption?And didn’t the state department ask Giuliani to reach out?
Jake Shermancome on
Narrator: I wish people would stop asking these kinds of questions. I have other work to do.That makes it worse. You realize that, don't you?
Yeah I read that one this morning. I actually agreed with Goodwin on one point: we both made the assumption that Trump would never release that transcript if it was damning.
That guy just can't help himself from lying.Schiff: this was a Mafia like shakedown of a foreign leader.
Which ones? Be precise please.Many democratic congressman were quetioned why they supported impeaching Trump yesterday and they said they didn't like his policies. That is not what impeachment was for and a dangerous precedent to set.
It wasn't damningYeah I read that one this morning. I actually agreed with Goodwin on one point: we both made the assumption that Trump would never release that transcript if it was damning.
We were both wrong.
I still wonder about that. I’m concerned that swing voters might still think a quid pro quo is needed. Hopefully we’ll start seeing polls on this stuff. What happens with Trump’s approval rating will also be interesting.When the public learns that Trump mentioned Biden, they’re going to realize that this is a bad thing, an impeachable thing, right? They’re not going to act like Mr. Anonymous in this thread right? Because it seems to me that the whole reason this is different is because most people don’t need an explanation as to why this is wrong. And if that’s not the case we’re really ####ed as a nation, IMO.