The real reason Pelosi won’t hold a floor vote for Impeachment inquiry
- Thread starter Sir Galahad
- Start date
I'm not entirely sure how what you're insinuating is relevant to the conversation, but what I'm trying to get at is that for all intents and purposes, Trump hired Barr to quash any investigations into him. Why else would he do everything in his power to stop the Mueller investigation, modify Mueller's findings in his "report," stop the CIA's investigation into the whistleblower's report, etc. This dude is literally running interference for Trump.
So I can fully understand your ignorance you’re concerned about a man worth billions of dollars is going to abuse his power to make money through the emoluments clause yet not concerned that the last two Democrat Presidents whom came to office with maybe a couple million and both leave worth 100 times more. Got it...
inappropriate conduct? Really, who are you to judge? Where is that line drawn?
Abuse of power? I hope you have more than a made up conversation from the lips of Adam Schiff’s. Was it abuse of power when Obama sent $1.6 billion to Iran in cash to help with his Iran deal?
You’re ignorance is astounding and I can tell you’re young and have a weak grasp on history. Barr should be traveling all over the world if it helps uncover how unelected people in powerful roles tried to take down an elected President. I thought Democrat’s cared about election meddling.
Facts elude you, I’ll bet you fell hook, line and sinker for the Kavanaugh accusations as well.
1) Trump is not worth billions. There is ample reporting to back this claim up. You have no proof that he is worth billions other than his word. The emoluments clause case is ongoing and it's clear to anyone with a brain that is has merit. Point: Me.
2) I'm not one to judge, the HoR is. They've suggested inappropriate conduct as a charge, I'm only repeating what they've said. Point: Me.
3) Made up conversation? Trump released a "transcript" admitting that the conversation happened! This is a fact that you cannot deny. Point: Me.
4) 1.8 billion was offered to settle a debt the US owed Iran for not delivering weapons during at arms sale. I don't see that as abuse of power, nor did Congress.
5) More bullshit. Barr is traveling the world, on our dime, in an attempt to discredit Mueller's report. You know, the one completed by a lifelong Republican that apparently "totally clears the President."
You're full of shit, again.
There's about as much truth to that statement today as there was to the statement that Holder was Obama's enforcer. They're both wrong. Barr is following up on an investigation started long ago (Crowdstrike) and also on an investigation of how the FISA court was used (abused), how our intelligence services came to use domestic and foreign sources to investigate a candidate for, then nominee, then sworn-in US President, and that requires evidence that may be available in foreign countries. Of course, you all are just going to blow this off, but it is a huge issue and you'd be howling if it happened to a Democrat.
Shookster picks and chooses what to listen or respond to, so he'll absolutely blow your correct statement off and respond with some insane response that has little to do with your comments.
The cash sent to Iran was absolutely an abuse of power. Those funds were seized under the purview of Congress and it should have gone through them to release it. I also cannot imagine a scenario where anyone in Congress would have signed on to the idea of air-dropping cash like they did.
Barr is pretty well respected and was considered to be an honest man up until his appointment as AG. Is it not possible that he saw the Mueller investigation as a farce after 18 months and saw a politically motivated CIA so he put an end to the shenanigans?
It's totally possible that not everything Pro-Trump is bad and everything anti-Trump is good. There are a lot of bad actors in Washington, but I don't think Barr is one of them.
Hmm where to start. So after 40 years and five presidents, two of whom were democrats, Obama decided to give $1.8 billion back to Iran out of the generosity of his hear. By the way, most of that money was interest, not actual Iranian money. Talk about a Quid Pro Quo, Obama gives Iran over $1.8 billion and he gets his nuclear deal that was bad to begin with. On top of that, Obama lied to congress about the money.
One of the linchpins of former President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran was that it would be accompanied by a near-ban on Iran having any access to the U.S. banking system. A new congressional report says that, too, was a lie.
Obama and his officials at the Treasury Department and State Department were clear: They would work assiduously to freeze out Iran from getting dollars to fund its mischief and mayhem around the world.
The Associated Press, puts it this way: "As the Treasury and State Department worked behind the scenes to help Iran access the dollar, the message to Congress remained the same: The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) did not allow Iran to access the U.S. financial system."
Obama sent a clear message to Congress: If you don't block this nuclear deal, we will bar Iran's access to our financial system. The deal was clear, unequivocal.
It was also a lie. Obama lied, and so did others in his administration.
That's the conclusion of a report by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. It alleges Obama officials pushed the U.S. Treasury to let Iran convert the equivalent of $5.7 billion of funds held in Oman's Bank of Muscat from rials into dollars and subsequently into euros.
It required a special license by the U.S. Treasury, which was granted in February of 2016. But it was never disclosed, either to Congress or the American people.
As to your weak argument about behavior, you have no point, you can't impeach someone because you don't like them.
The last point, and I saved it for last because it's too freaking easy to abuse you is the conversation. Not even the democrats are pushing the quid pro quo anymore because Trump released the transcripts. But because the actual call did not match the liberals narrative, Schiff made up an entire new conversation as his opening into his hearing. Remember this is the same guy who said he had "apple evidence" of Russian collusion with Trump yet after all this time he has yet to provide anything more than comical relief. The actual conversation will provide nothing, now if you live in the work of adam Schiff I guess you think there actually was something wrong.
You are worse than Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, instead of Lucy pulling the ball, your beloved liberals keep lying to you and you keep falling for it.
That is pretty debatable. He was a somewhat controversial figure during his first stint as attorney general as well, due to his role in the Iran-Contra pardons. A lot of people have long viewed him as someone who won't hold powerful people accountable. In fact, and this is pure speculation of course, but a lot of people think the reason Trump nominated him for AG in the first place was because he knew he could sort of get him to "work for" Trump.
Last edited:
Dems under a Harry Reid were the first to use the nuclear option and none other than Mitch McConnell warned him saying it would be used against them. Now look who is crying like little bitches.
Why does every argument you make fall back onto “but what about Obama/Hillary?” I did not support Obama, and I do not agree with the majority of the decisions he made. His actions, however, have NK reflection upon Trump.
THE TRANSCRIPT HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED. What you’ve read is a a WH-edited memo on parts of the phone call. Get that through your thick ****ing skull.
Here’s the thing: I honestly don’t think you are capable of having a reasonable and nuanced conversation about it. I’m not sure if it’s intelligence or sheer stubbornness. You believe everything your conservative news and blogs tell you and refuse to even consider the other side of the coin. Good luck boss, you’re gonna need it.
What Crowdstrike investigation? You mean the conspiracy theory that Crowdstrike somehow blamed the DNC hack on the Russians? That came from a post on 4chan years ago and has no factual basis. Even the DOJ agrees with Crowdstrike that the hackers were Russian, not Ukranian.
The FISA thing is still up in the air, hopefully we'll find out when the IG releases their report. I fail to understand how trips to Italy are beneficial to that investigation.
Maybe CrowdStrike was wrong but the DOJ has reconfirmed that they are still looking at Ukraine, among others, in that 2016 investigation. Maybe it’s thin but it’s still there.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katie...n-interference-is-being-investigated-n2553684
I'll be interested to know what they find out. If it's all based on Manafort, they are barking up the right tree. That dude is a grade-A shitbag and traitor to our country.
Except he never modified a thing. Mueller testified and it was a disaster for your democrat friends. If anything Barr was friendly towards Mueller when summarizing cause the testimony showed what a farce the whole thing was
Good dodge of the first point, apparently the rules only apply to Trump and no other.
What was released by the White House is a Memcon, Memcons are created by a team of note-takers, by hand and on computers, what the president and the other party say. The note-takers are duty officers — nonpartisan career staff with military or national security experience — whose job it is to monitor the Situation Room around the clock.
There are no recordings and there is no word for word document so there is nothing that is being hidden. What was released is everything that was there and is done by non Trump people, why can't you get that through your thick ****ing skull.
As to your last point, I find it amusing that someone as obviously inexpericanced as yourself is trying to give anyone advice. I'm okay, thanks for being concerned.
just remind the guy he’s a pathetic liar and I have the proof
