Home

So who do you believe?
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics


View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 3:34 pm
itsmeima wrote:
This is what we do know:

New York Times, Oct. 2: The House staff member, following the committee’s procedures, suggested the [whistleblower] find a lawyer to advise him and meet with an inspector general, with whom he could file a whistle-blower complaint. The aide shared some of what the officer conveyed to Mr. Schiff. The aide did not share the whistle-blower’s identity with Mr. Schiff, an official said.


MSNBC Sep 17:
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to, but I’m sure the whistleblower has concerns that he has not been advised, as the law requires,
by the inspector general or the director of national intelligence, just as to how he is to communicate with Congress. And so the risk for the whistleblower is retaliation. Will the whistleblower be protected under the statute if the offices that are supposed to come to his assistance and provide the mechanism are unwilling to do so? But yes, we would love to talk directly with the whistleblower.”

Boland Oct 2: “Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican and Democratic-controlled Committees, the whistleblower contacted the Committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the Intelligence Community. This is a regular occurrence, given the Committee’s unique oversight role and responsibilities. Consistent with the Committee’s longstanding procedures, Committee staff appropriately advised the whistleblower to contact an Inspector General and to seek legal counsel.


When Schiff said “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower.” he implied that he and his team, that’s not true, the whistleblower did contact one of his staffers but to say Schiff knows the whistleblower just isn’t true.


Are you actually justifying it as being honest? Your so called disclaimer says “In not so many words...” the problem is he didn’t say it in “not so many words,” he added a whole lot of words and used completely different language, all fabricated, to make it seem as if it was a mafia like shakedown! Are you seriously trying to defend that???

And your claim that it was clear he was “paraphrasing?” Paraphrasing does not include entirely changing the meaning of what was said!”


Last edited by Cheiny on Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:32 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 3:42 pm
Jeanette wrote:



BTW if Schiff alleges something and builds a case for it but you disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't mean he's "lying."
.


So you call fabricating the entire content of the phone call, which has no resemblance to the actual call, “building a case?” Seriously? Most others call it LIES AND CORRUPTION to suit a nefarious agenda, Schiff is the epitome of snake-like dishonesty, and hearing him up there speaking about honesty, democracy, the constitution is just the most ironic joke in the world.

PinkFridge wrote:
Since this topic veered off course (I'm inclined to say "Bernie") I have a question. How could witnesses be blocked? I'm thinking of Bolton and Mulvaney.


I personally would love to hear from Schiff, Sr. And Jr. Biden....that would definitely be popcorn-worthy.


Last edited by Cheiny on Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 3:48 pm
Jeanette wrote:
I'm going to get "Republicans for Bernie" trending. I'm sure it will help him tons in the Democratic primary.


No joke. Lots of Republicans (not me) are going to be voting Democrat in open primaries, and Bernie a) is perceived as not gonna win and b)is presumed to send people running the other way after debates and the clear contrast between Trump and socialism is revealed. (Not my words, just saying.)
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 3:52 pm
Cheiny wrote:
I personally would love to hear from Schiff, Sr. And Jr. Biden....that would definitely be popcorn-worthy.


I hear there's talk of a swap, Biden for Bolton, or something like that.

BTW, as a PSA, no one is calling Jeanette a female pig. https://www.acronymfinder.com/SOW.html

It took me a while, but I assume SOW is speaking of which?
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:07 pm
PinkFridge wrote:
I hear there's talk of a swap, Biden for Bolton, or something like that.

BTW, as a PSA, no one is calling Jeanette a female pig. https://www.acronymfinder.com/SOW.html

It took me a while, but I assume SOW is speaking of which?


Hunter Biden is not on trial. Joe Biden is not on trial. Donald J Trump is on trial.

The DOJ is free to open an investigation into the Bidens at any time. If they have enough evidence they can indict them and put them on trial. If they need cooperation from Ukraine, they can formally request it through diplomatic channels.

Trump was impeached for corruptly pressuring a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. He wants to create the impression that Joe Biden is corrupt without actually having to produce any evidence or bring any charges.

Senate Republicans would like nothing better than to call Joe and Hunter Biden to take the pressure off Trump. But the place to do that is at their own trial, not at Trump's impeachment trial.
Back to top

Jeanette




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:15 pm
PinkFridge wrote:
No joke. Lots of Republicans (not me) are going to be voting Democrat in open primaries, and Bernie a) is perceived as not gonna win and b)is presumed to send people running the other way after debates and the clear contrast between Trump and socialism is revealed. (Not my words, just saying.)


Right. The sudden love for Bernie in Republican circles is because they think he'll be easier to beat, not because they really think he's so truthful and sincere.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:21 pm
Jeanette wrote:
It seems that if this were true, Trump could build a strong case for himself showing that his efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine far predated the phone call. He could showcase his anti-corruption efforts around the world
He could produce documents and witnesses to prove this. Yet he won't do this. Instead he's trying to repeal the US foreign corrupt practices act. Exactly what a real corruption fighter would do!


BTW if Schiff alleges something and builds a case for it but you disagree with his conclusions, that doesn't mean he's "lying." But when a lawyer for Trump stands in front on the Senate and says that Republican congressmen on the intelligence committee were not allowed into closed hearings, that is clearly a blatant, easily proven lie.

People don't block witnesses and evidence that could prove their innocence. By voting down every single witness, Senate Republicans are showing America they don't care about truth or facts. They don't care about upholding their oath to do impartial justice.


I don’t think you have an understanding of the US justice system or the legal basis for impeachment. It’s on the prosecution to prove guilt, it’s not on the defense to prove innocence. And the dems are failing. Badly. And they’ll pay dearly for it at the polls.

#BestBubby wrote:
Democrats are getting creamed. Look at this tweet:


Dems: "Our case is overwhelming!"

Also Dems: "We need more evidence!"

Ridiculoous





Bingo! What a pathetic sham, and amazing that there are actually people out there who are falling for it!

#BestBubby wrote:
The time to do the Discovery was during the House Inquiry. The House voted for impeachment saying they had enough evidence to convict. Now Democrats are admitting they do NOT have enough evidence to convict (but did so anyway which is illegal) and are demanding that the Senate continue the Inquiry the House failed to do.

Nope!


And now they’re crying “Coverup” if dems won’t help them and allow them to try to find some actual evidence! More like, incompetence and lies!


Last edited by Cheiny on Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:40 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top

Squishy




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:25 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Right. The sudden love for Bernie in Republican circles is because they think he'll be easier to beat, not because they really think he's so truthful and sincere.


I think Warren is a liar. I think of the two, Bernie is more truthful. It is not a love for Bernie or an endorsement. It's a question of which one is more credible.

How's that Rusian agent thing working out for Hillary. Think she will have to pay $100 million?
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:29 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
They're requesting the right to subpoena documents to be presented to the tribunal. They're requesting the right to subpoena witnesses.

Why are you so afraid of the evidence, that you want it blocked? Why are you so afraid of testimony? No one has ever objected to the presentation of exonerating evidence.


Why were the dems so afraid of allowing the president to have legal representation in their phony hearings? You can’t have it both ways.

Jeanette wrote:
Right. The sudden love for Bernie in Republican circles is because they think he'll be easier to beat, not because they really think he's so truthful and sincere.


Trump will beat any one of those losers handily. Just watch.


Last edited by Cheiny on Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:39 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:37 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Hunter Biden is not on trial. Joe Biden is not on trial. Donald J Trump is on trial.
.


Then by your logic, none of the dems’ (third hand, hearsay) witnesses should’ve testified either. They’re not the ones on trial. Makes sense?

Anything and anyone relevant are fair game. The Bidens are totally fair game, because proving how corrupt those 2 were, and how their corruption with Ukraine was going on for so long right under Obama’s nose, Trump had good reason to withhold the aid until he felt confident the new PM was uprooting corruption.

Now wouldn’t that just destroy the entire premise upon which the dems’ (current) phony hoax is based?


Last edited by Cheiny on Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:42 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:38 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Hunter Biden is not on trial. Joe Biden is not on trial. Donald J Trump is on trial.

The DOJ is free to open an investigation into the Bidens at any time. If they have enough evidence they can indict them and put them on trial. If they need cooperation from Ukraine, they can formally request it through diplomatic channels.

Trump was impeached for corruptly pressuring a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. He wants to create the impression that Joe Biden is corrupt without actually having to produce any evidence or bring any charges.

Senate Republicans would like nothing better than to call Joe and Hunter Biden to take the pressure off Trump. But the place to do that is at their own trial, not at Trump's impeachment trial.


If Trump really cared about whether there was corruption, you have to wonder about why he hasn't.

If, however, he only cared about attempting to destroy the credibility of the person he viewed as his strongest opponent, then he accomplished his mission, and there's no need to launch an investigation.

One correction, though. The evidence shows that Trump didn't care about an investigation. He cared about an announcement of an investigation.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 5:45 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
If Trump really cared about whether there was corruption, you have to wonder about why he hasn't.

If, however, he only cared about attempting to destroy the credibility of the person he viewed as his strongest opponent, then he accomplished his mission, and there's no need to launch an investigation.

One correction, though. The evidence shows that Trump didn't care about an investigation. He cared about an announcement of an investigation.


Evidence? Let’s see it. And I don’t mean someone’s opinion.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:00 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Evidence? Let’s see it. And I don’t mean someone’s opinion.


Quote:
SCHIFF: And in order to perform that official act [a meeting in the Oval Office], Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his reelection campaign, correct?

SONDLAND: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.

SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.


Quote:
GOLDMAN: Giuliani and President Trump didn’t actually care if they did them, right?

SONDLAND: I never heard, Mr. Goldman, anyone say that the investigations had to start or be completed. The only thing I heard from Mr. Giuliani or otherwise was that they had to be announced. ... President Trump presumably, communicated through Mr. Giuliani, wanted the Ukrainians on-record publicly that they were going to do those investigations.

GOLDMAN: You never heard anyone say that they really wanted them to do the investigations.

SONDLAND: I didn’t hear either way.


Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow in an interview that former Energy Secretary Rick Perry was directed by Rudy Giuliani to tell Ukraine its U.S. aid was contingent on the country announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Parnas alleges that after Giuliani made the request, Perry called him back and said he had been in touch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and conveyed the message.

As a start.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:05 pm
SixOfWands wrote:


Cheiny wrote:
Evidence? Let’s see it. And I don’t mean someone’s opinion.


Quote:
SCHIFF: And in order to perform that official act [a meeting in the Oval Office], Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his reelection campaign, correct?

SONDLAND: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.

SCHIFF: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?

SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.
.


I just said, “EVIDENCE, Let’s see it. And I don’t mean someone’s opinion.“ So you post someone’s opinion. “....AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.” That’s someone’s opinion.

Somehow I just knew you had none, because there is none. Unreal.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:09 pm
SixOfWands wrote:
Lev Parnas told Rachel Maddow in an interview that former Energy Secretary Rick Perry was directed by Rudy Giuliani to tell Ukraine its U.S. aid was contingent on the country announcing investigations of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Parnas alleges that after Giuliani made the request, Perry called him back and said he had been in touch with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and conveyed the message.

As a start.


Ah, I love it when liberals start quoting criminals when said criminal’s agenda matches with their own.
Perhaps you can enlighten us; what is it about this man, what exactly do you know about him, his reliability, credibility, honesty, that makes you unashamed to quote him as a believable source?
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:17 pm
Lindsay Graham said something so spot on today... “I wouldn’t give the democrats any cooperation or any documents either if I was the president! They’re on a mission to destroy him!”

They can continue to twist in the wind. All this time, all this money being wasted on yet another hoax to try to remove the president for the simple reason that they want to regain power, and they know he’s been so wildly successful and will no doubt be impossible to beat at the polls! Just like one of the few honest democrats, Al Green, said, “We have to impeach him, otherwise he’ll win the next election.”

Americans should be outraged at our taxpayer dollars funding this scam, and paying these liars’ salaries! The only ones actually doing the work for the American people that they were elected to do, are the republicans under the ledaership of Pres. Trump! Dems, what have they been doing? “Hoaxes, Mueller, quid pro quo? Bribery? Collusion? Obstruction? Impeachment.” All an utter waste. Everyone knows he won’t be removed from office. So what’s the purpose? All political garbage. Congrats, liberals. This is what you voted for. Be proud.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:44 pm
Cheiny wrote:
I just said, “EVIDENCE, Let’s see it. And I don’t mean someone’s opinion.“ So you post someone’s opinion. “....AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.” That’s someone’s opinion.

Somehow I just knew you had none, because there is none. Unreal.


That's TESTIMONY as to what occurred, not opinion. The fact that you don't like it, and that you would prefer to disbelieve it, is irrelevant.

Applying your standard, the only time there could be a conviction is when there is a confession, as no other testimony would be anything but an opinion.

ETA, as to Parnas, unfortunately, that's who Trump employed. Not my fault. Funny how all the Republicans didn't know him until its shown that they did. Like Nunes.
Back to top

SixOfWands




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 6:53 pm
Cheiny wrote:
Lindsay Graham said something so spot on today... “I wouldn’t give the democrats any cooperation or any documents either if I was the president! They’re on a mission to destroy him!”

They can continue to twist in the wind. All this time, all this money being wasted on yet another hoax to try to remove the president for the simple reason that they want to regain power, and they know he’s been so wildly successful and will no doubt be impossible to beat at the polls! Just like one of the few honest democrats, Al Green, said, “We have to impeach him, otherwise he’ll win the next election.”

Americans should be outraged at our taxpayer dollars funding this scam, and paying these liars’ salaries! The only ones actually doing the work for the American people that they were elected to do, are the republicans under the ledaership of Pres. Trump! Dems, what have they been doing? “Hoaxes, Mueller, quid pro quo? Bribery? Collusion? Obstruction? Impeachment.” All an utter waste. Everyone knows he won’t be removed from office. So what’s the purpose? All political garbage. Congrats, liberals. This is what you voted for. Be proud.


Since the term has been used in this thread, I want to point out that THIS is gaslighting. Pretending that all of the evidence that has been adduced doesn't exist, and trying to convince people that they didn't hear what they heard.

Its the same as the conservatives' deliberate misrepresentation of the Mueller Report, which found that, "While this report does not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him." The evidence "about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred." "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." Indeed, one of the reasons that Trump wasn't conclusively found to have wrongly tried to influence the investigation is because his aids refused to do so. "The President's efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests." And, of course, it found that Russia interfered in the election.
Back to top

Snickers18




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 7:57 pm
PinkFridge wrote:
I hear there's talk of a swap, Biden for Bolton, or something like that.

BTW, as a PSA, no one is calling Jeanette a female pig. https://www.acronymfinder.com/SOW.html

It took me a while, but I assume SOW is speaking of which?


SOW is an abbreviated way of addressing SixOfwands.
Back to top

Cheiny




 
 
 
 

Post  Wed, Jan 22 2020, 8:08 pm
Jeanette wrote:
Right. The sudden love for Bernie in Republican circles is because they think he'll be easier to beat, not because they really think he's so truthful and sincere.


Have you not understood all the posts here explaining to you that it’s not a “sudden love for Bernie,” it’s merely answering the question of who we believe to be more honest between him and Liz Warren? Why do you keep repeating that falsehood?
Back to top
  Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 8 of 11 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Do u really believe
by amother
81 Tue, Jan 28 2020, 4:41 am View last post
Do you believe in zodiac signs? 35 Mon, Jan 27 2020, 8:29 am View last post
Who would you believe?
by amother
14 Tue, Jan 21 2020, 10:08 am View last post
Song I believe 5 Sun, Nov 03 2019, 7:22 am View last post
How much do you really believe this?
by amother
61 Thu, Mar 07 2019, 10:17 am View last post

Jump to: