ADVERTISEMENT

How are you preparing for the upcoming Civil War?

And I’ve asked you what law did he break.
Christ, even partisan hacks should know the difference between right and wrong. The United States Constitution clearly states in Article II Section 4 that a President can be impeached and thrown out of office for treason, bribery, and other crimes that are deemed to offend the country's sense of justice.

Using your position as President and the power of the United States to pressure countries like Ukraine or Australia to help you with your personal agendas is clearly, and unequivocally, a violation of the Constitution. You were elected to your position to serve the country's best interests, not for the country to serve your personal interests.

While we're at it, threatening a government whistleblower is something the Saudi Prince, Russia's Putin or North Korea's tin-horn dictator, Kim Yung un, would do, NOT the President of the United States for crying out loud.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
Go read the DNI's letter. It's very clear, unlike how you're trying to portray it.

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG News/2019/September 30 - Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints/ICIG Statement on Processing of Whistleblower Complaints.pdf

"The Complainant on the form he or she submitted on August 12, 2019 in fact checked two relevant boxes: The first box stated that, “I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved”; and the second box stated that, “Other employees have told me about events or records involved.” As part of his determination that the urgent concern appeared credible, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that the Complainant had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix. In short, the ICIG did not find that the Complainant could “provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,” which would have made it much harder, and significantly less likely, for the Inspector General to determine in a 14-calendar day review period that the complaint “appeared credible,” as required by statute. Therefore, although the Complainant’s Letter acknowledged that the Complainant was not a direct witness to the President’s July 25, 2019, telephone call with the Ukrainian President, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community determined that other information obtained during the ICIG’s preliminary review supported the Complainant’s allegations."
That the complaint appears credible isn’t a judgment of the assertions rather it’s an opinion that the whistleblower is who they say they are and the things that he alleges are not implausible. The main issue here is the assertion that Trump leveraged his position and contracts to strongarm the Ukraine into doing his bidding. The memorandum doesn’t seem to support that. If there was no leveraging, no strongarm, no quid pro quo, then that changes things.

As for the basis of the investigation, there is an ongoing investigation into the DNC server hack and Ukraine’s activities in the 2016 election so it was not out of bounds for him to ask about that. What is grayer is asking about Biden, but the former VP opened the door to that himself. Biden doesn’t receive a get-out-of-jail free card because he’s running for President and it’s not out of bounds for our President to ask for information about a former VPs alleged (confessed?) activities. If our President cannot ask, then who would? You’d be giving everyone a free ticket to overseas corruption as long as they run for President.
 
That the complaint appears credible isn’t a judgment of the assertions rather it’s an opinion that the whistleblower is who they say they are and the things that he alleges are not implausible. The main issue here is the assertion that Trump leveraged his position and contracts to strongarm the Ukraine into doing his bidding. The memorandum doesn’t seem to support that. If there was no leveraging, no strongarm, no quid pro quo, then that changes things.

As for the basis of the investigation, there is an ongoing investigation into the DNC server hack and Ukraine’s activities in the 2016 election so it was not out of bounds for him to ask about that. What is grayer is asking about Biden, but the former VP opened the door to that himself. Biden doesn’t receive a get-out-of-jail free card because he’s running for President and it’s not out of bounds for our President to ask for information about a former VPs alleged (confessed?) activities. If our President cannot ask, then who would? You’d be giving everyone a free ticket to overseas corruption as long as they run for President.

Bad takes.

1. The DNI interviewed the whistleblower as well as looked into the presented evidence and said that they were both "credible" AND "urgent."

2. The memorandum may not explicitly support that, but we haven't seen the full transcript of the call. Additionally, Trump withheld hundreds of millions in aid to Ukraine shortly before this call after literally EVERYONE else OK'd the transfer. Seems pretty fishy in the context of this call. Quid pro quo is not required for Trump to be guilty.

3. Biden didn't open the door to shit. Trump believes a conspiracy theory and is trying to prove it. The Biden(s) did nothing illegal.
 
Bad takes.

1. The DNI interviewed the whistleblower as well as looked into the presented evidence and said that they were both "credible" AND "urgent."

2. The memorandum may not explicitly support that, but we haven't seen the full transcript of the call. Additionally, Trump withheld hundreds of millions in aid to Ukraine shortly before this call after literally EVERYONE else OK'd the transfer. Seems pretty fishy in the context of this call. Quid pro quo is not required for Trump to be guilty.

3. Biden didn't open the door to shit. Trump believes a conspiracy theory and is trying to prove it. The Biden(s) did nothing illegal.
Without quid pro quo, what is Trump guilty of?

As to 3, Biden’s own words captured on video and shared on this site of him confessing to holding up a billion dollars of aid of the prosecutor wasn’t fired. If Trump deserves an investigation, so does that. Especially after Joe lies about never talking with Hunter about his Ukraine dealings when Hunter had already come out and said he’d talk to Joe about it.

So investigate it all. Let’s clean it all up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
That the complaint appears credible isn’t a judgment of the assertions rather it’s an opinion that the whistleblower is who they say they are and the things that he alleges are not implausible. The main issue here is the assertion that Trump leveraged his position and contracts to strongarm the Ukraine into doing his bidding. The memorandum doesn’t seem to support that. If there was no leveraging, no strongarm, no quid pro quo, then that changes things.

As for the basis of the investigation, there is an ongoing investigation into the DNC server hack and Ukraine’s activities in the 2016 election so it was not out of bounds for him to ask about that. What is grayer is asking about Biden, but the former VP opened the door to that himself. Biden doesn’t receive a get-out-of-jail free card because he’s running for President and it’s not out of bounds for our President to ask for information about a former VPs alleged (confessed?) activities. If our President cannot ask, then who would? You’d be giving everyone a free ticket to overseas corruption as long as they run for President.
If you read the actual transcripts of the phone conversation Trump didn’t bring up Biden let alone eight times like the media claimed. It was The Ukrainian President who brought up Biden. Even if Trump did, Biden is a private citizen and Trump asking about a crime of a private American citizen is not against any law.
 
If you read the actual transcripts of the phone conversation Trump didn’t bring up Biden let alone eight times like the media claimed.
EARTH TO SIR GALAHAD: THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVEN'T SEEN OR READ THE ACTUAL TRANSCRIPT!

The 'Memo' of the phone call that the Trump White House released was intended to serve as a quasi-transcript to placate everybody. But one has to wonder, if an actual word-for-word transcript existed, why wasn't THAT ONE released? Instead it's locked away in a top secret file -- along with Trump conversations with Putin and with the Saudi Prince -- which is contrary to the way most Presidential phone call recordings are handled and filed.

Hmm, I wonder why?
 
Without quid pro quo, what is Trump guilty of?

As to 3, Biden’s own words captured on video and shared on this site of him confessing to holding up a billion dollars of aid of the prosecutor wasn’t fired. If Trump deserves an investigation, so does that. Especially after Joe lies about never talking with Hunter about his Ukraine dealings when Hunter had already come out and said he’d talk to Joe about it.

So investigate it all. Let’s clean it all up.

I’m not sure what he’s guilty of. I know what he’s been accused of could be tried and charged several ways.

Biden held aid because the US, along with the entire G7, the IMF, and the BDRD were pressuring Ukraine to remove a dirty prosecutor. This was not for his political gain, unlike Trump.
 
Bad takes.

1. The DNI interviewed the whistleblower as well as looked into the presented evidence and said that they were both "credible" AND "urgent."

2. The memorandum may not explicitly support that, but we haven't seen the full transcript of the call. Additionally, Trump withheld hundreds of millions in aid to Ukraine shortly before this call after literally EVERYONE else OK'd the transfer. Seems pretty fishy in the context of this call. Quid pro quo is not required for Trump to be guilty.

3. Biden didn't open the door to shit. Trump believes a conspiracy theory and is trying to prove it. The Biden(s) did nothing illegal.
Without quid pro quo, what is Trump guilty of?

As to 3, Biden’s own words captured on video and shared on this site of him confessing to holding up a billion dollars of aid of the prosecutor wasn’t fired. If Trump deserves an investigation, so does that. Especially after Joe lies about never talking with Hunter about his Ukraine dealings when Hunter had already come out and said he’d talk to Joe about it.

So investigate it all. Let’s clean it all up.
The prosecutor was being fired for NOT investigating corruption. Stop deflecting, Trump is screwed.
 
Biden held aid because the US, along with the entire G7, the IMF, and the BDRD were pressuring Ukraine to remove a dirty prosecutor. This was not for his political gain, unlike Trump.

OF COURSE IT WASN'T. Anybody who has looked into this without an already-set agenda has seen this.

But the Trumpsters will continue to willfully ignore it because they desperately need a "well whadda 'bout?" to take the heat off Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
For anyone keeping track, Trump's response to a whistleblower legally following the law reporting possibly treasonous activity by Trump has been:

1) Suggesting the whistleblower is committing treason (penalty for treason is up to death)

2)Making threats while actively trying to uncover the whistleblower in violation of the law

3 )Actively trying to encourage a civil war amongst his already deranged supporters


Y'all are literally supporting a dictator.
 
The prosecutor was being fired for NOT investigating corruption. Stop deflecting, Trump is screwed.
I love how you all just ignore Biden’s own words. He told him that they wouldn’t get the billion unless the prosecutor was fired. Well son of a bitch, the prosecutor got fired. Whatever reason they now want to assign to it, Biden said it was because of him. Not my words, Biden’s words. That’s not a deflection; investigate both of them or neither.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
The prosecutor was being fired for NOT investigating corruption. Stop deflecting, Trump is screwed.
I love how you all just ignore Biden’s own words. He told him that they wouldn’t get the billion unless the prosecutor was fired. Well son of a bitch, the prosecutor got fired. Whatever reason they now want to assign to it, Biden said it was because of him. Not my words, Biden’s words. That’s not a deflection; investigate both of them or neither.
Lol, Biden is not being investigated. Got anything else?
 
I love how you all just ignore Biden’s own words. He told him that they wouldn’t get the billion unless the prosecutor was fired. Well son of a bitch, the prosecutor got fired.
Whatever reason they now want to assign to it, Biden said it was because of him. Not my words, Biden’s words. That’s not a deflection; investigate both of them or neither.
So Biden helped lead the charge to get rid of the prosecutor for personal reasons? Please explain to us how that works.

From what I recall of the Ukraine corruption story, the Big Boss for the company that Hunter Biden went to work for (a few years later) was under investigation by the British for corruption. They froze this guy's assets in a British bank and then went to this Ukrainian prosecutor for assistance in nailing him. But instead of helping, this guy basically said 'how dare you freeze Ukrainian assets abroad!' and eventually the British dropped the case, unfroze the assets and surprise, surprise, this Big Boss guy moved his money elsewhere. Given CEO of the company his son went to work for, you'd think, if he played Trump's game, Biden would be protecting that same prosecutor instead of getting his crooked butt removed from office.
 
Can you imagine a senate controlled trial? How great would that be? They could call any witness they want, set the rules for what can be used as evidence and there is nothing a democrat can do about it. They could call the Bidens’s in defense of the president, they could call Hillary, google exec’s, Democrat staffers as well as the whistleblower himself. This is going to be awesome!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
Can you imagine a senate controlled trial? How great would that be? They could call any witness they want, set the rules for what can be used as evidence and there is nothing a democrat can do about it. They could call the Bidens’s in defense of the president, they could call Hillary, google exec’s, Democrat staffers as well as the whistleblower himself. This is going to be awesome!
They could finally get to the bottom of Benghazi and Fast & Furious.
 
They could finally get to the bottom of Benghazi and Fast & Furious.
In defense of Trump they could call all the Ukrainian witnesses they want. If there is evidence of the Crowdstrike investigation in Ukraine or other information around the start of the Russia Hoax, it would be fair game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Crazyhole
In defense of Trump they could call all the Ukrainian witnesses they want. If there is evidence of the Crowdstrike investigation in Ukraine or other information around the start of the Russia Hoax, it would be fair game.


Yep. And there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, such as:

What was discussed in the meeting between Biden and Devon archer. 5 days later, what was discussed in bidens meeting with the Ukraine? The next day, why was Devon archer named to the board of directors at burisma? Why was the travel ban lifted on the oligarch who owns burisma the next week? Why was the 1.8 billion dollars in aid deposited into the bank owned by the guy who also owns burisma and recently had his assets seized by England?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
In defense of Trump they could call all the Ukrainian witnesses they want. If there is evidence of the Crowdstrike investigation in Ukraine or other information around the start of the Russia Hoax, it would be fair game.
Yeah, the Republican Senate COULD do the same batsh*t crazy stuff that ultimately led Trump down this road to a call for impeachment. I’m sure that’s the winning play for you guys! :)
 
Russia invades Crimea. Obama responds by not responding. Russian oligarchs in Ukraine are caught on tape talking about how they were trying to influence the election for the Hillary.

I'm sure there's nothing there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Russia invades Crimea. Obama responds by not responding. Russian oligarchs in Ukraine are caught on tape talking about how they were trying to influence the election for the Hillary.

I'm sure there's nothing there.

Why do you insist on commenting on stuff thon which it is painfully obvious that you are completely ignorant.

It's ok to just say you don't know, instead of obviously making up shit, or probably just parroting fox Fox news talking points.
 
Russia invades Crimea. Obama responds by not responding. Russian oligarchs in Ukraine are caught on tape talking about how they were trying to influence the election for the Hillary.
A tiny dose of reality: Russia annexed Crimea in March of 2014, 22 months before the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
Yep. And there are a lot of questions that need to be answered, such as:

What was discussed in the meeting between Biden and Devon archer. 5 days later, what was discussed in bidens meeting with the Ukraine? The next day, why was Devon archer named to the board of directors at burisma? Why was the travel ban lifted on the oligarch who owns burisma the next week? Why was the 1.8 billion dollars in aid deposited into the bank owned by the guy who also owns burisma and recently had his assets seized by England?

Liberals assured us that there's nothing wrong at all with Hunter Biden being put on the board of a company in which he knows nothing about what they do. At a time when they were under investigation with undue influence from the USG who just happened to have his father as the VP.
 
Russia invades Crimea. Obama responds by not responding. Russian oligarchs in Ukraine are caught on tape talking about how they were trying to influence the election for the Hillary.

I'm sure there's nothing there.

The US imposed sanctions on Russia after Crimea. That is most certainly a response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NinjaKnight
The US imposed sanctions on Russia after Crimea. That is most certainly a response.

………...and then Russia invaded Ukraine further, took over their entire eastern border, and Obama Admin blocked the transfer of arms to Ukraine to fight back.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Liberals assured us that there's nothing wrong at all with Hunter Biden being put on the board of a company in which he knows nothing about what they do. At a time when they were under investigation with undue influence from the USG who just happened to have his father as the VP.

So Biden demanded that their investigator be fired because he wasn't looking into corruption involving a guy. Then we deposit 1.8 billion dollars in that guys bank.

Nothing to see here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Would you have been ok with a war?

It wouldn't have been much of a war. Nearly every civilized country condemned the invasion, so it would have been Russia vs the world over a chunk of land that really didn't benefit them. We should have mobilized our military into Ukraine and showed some backbone. I doubt that a single shot would have been fired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
………...and then Russia invaded Ukraine further, took over their entire eastern border, and Obama Admin blocked the transfer of arms to Ukraine to fight back.

It's not that simple. A lot of people in the Ukrainian government and a lot of Ukrainians (or at least in Crimea) were pro Russia, and those weapons could have very easily been used against the Ukrainian people, not in defense of them. Obama thought more weapons would have caused the situation to worsen. You can disagree, but it wasn't as simplistic a situation as you are making it out to be.
 
It wouldn't have been much of a war. Nearly every civilized country condemned the invasion, so it would have been Russia vs the world over a chunk of land that really didn't benefit them. We should have mobilized our military into Ukraine and showed some backbone. I doubt that a single shot would have been fired.

:joy::joy::joy:
:joy::joy::joy:
:joy::joy::joy:

Jesus fuking christ the comedy of this board never ends. You people are the dumbest pieces of shit on the planet
 
It's not that simple. A lot of people in the Ukrainian government and a lot of Ukrainians (or at least in Crimea) were pro Russia, and those weapons could have very easily been used against the Ukrainian people, not in defense of them. Obama thought more weapons would have caused the situation to worsen. You can disagree, but it wasn't as simplistic a situation as you are making it out to be.

lol are you serious? These were going to be intended for the Ukrainian Army who was fighting armored brigades in the east of their country, complete with tanks that Russia rolled across the border. As Trump later authorized, they were asking for Javelin missiles and other anti-tank arms to try and repel the tanks that were occupying their soil.

We've been supplying them Javelins for a few years now and they've yet to be used against their own people. That was never even a possibility.
 
It's not that simple. A lot of people in the Ukrainian government and a lot of Ukrainians (or at least in Crimea) were pro Russia ... You can disagree, but it wasn't as simplistic a situation as you are making it out to be.
Exactly. The Russians played this in such a way that IF the U.S. had chosen a military response, WE would have been painted as the invaders, not the other way around.
 
lol are you serious? These were going to be intended for the Ukrainian Army who was fighting armored brigades in the east of their country, complete with tanks that Russia rolled across the border. As Trump later authorized, they were asking for Javelin missiles and other anti-tank arms to try and repel the tanks that were occupying their soil.

We've been supplying them Javelins for a few years now and they've yet to be used against their own people. That was never even a possibility.

It isn't the same situation now though. They essentially had a revolution in 2014 and the country had some serious factions at that time. We decided selling them weapons could make the situation worse. Again, you can disagree, but there was a reason to stop selling them arms.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT