ADVERTISEMENT

What would be an impeachable offense to you?

Dr Fiona Hill tore Trump a new one with her testimony on the last day of the impeachment inquiry hearings. This US expert on Russia had the audacity to say imply that Nunes and his fellow clowns had been duped into buying the Ruski’s Disinformation campaign about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections.

You really have to be a diehard Trumper to think, ‘it’s wasn’t Russia who interfered in the election — it was ... drumroll ... UKRAINE ALL ALONG!!! :rolleyes:
 
This post loses all credibility when it says Schiff didn’t meet with the Whistleblower, he 100% did. Also who cares about a “smear campaign?” Obama fired every ambassador on his first day in office, where is the outrage?
Did he have his personal attorney smear them first before firing them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Poolside Knight
Did he have his personal attorney smear them first before firing them?
I’ve said this before, I’ve been part of several corporate changes. My current situation we got a new CEO 18 months ago. Out of the 12 people in the leadership council there are three left. Maybe if she would have had his same vision for Ukraine she would still be there. Tell me who was the ambassador of Ukraine when Russia took Crimea?
 
Dr Fiona Hill tore Trump a new one with her testimony on the last day of the impeachment inquiry hearings. This US expert on Russia had the audacity to say imply that Nunes and his fellow clowns had been duped into buying the Ruski’s Disinformation campaign about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections.

You really have to be a diehard Trumper to think, ‘it’s wasn’t Russia who interfered in the election — it was ... drumroll ... UKRAINE ALL ALONG!!! :rolleyes:

Then why are 2 ukranians in prison for election meddling in 2016?
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
American Oversight claims that is only the first drop and there is more to come that has not been given to Congress. Happy Sábado. Go Knights:sunglasses:
 
American Oversight claims that is only the first drop and there is more to come that has not been given to Congress. Happy Sábado. Go Knights:sunglasses:
That’s an interesting site there. Not to say that this information is wrong, but they do claim to be non-partisan in the first statement on their about page. Then you look at the backgrounds of all of the people that contribute to the site and the investigations that they’ve undertaken since March of 2017 and you see that they are actually hyper-partisan. Doesn’t make the information itself wrong but it does make you have to look twice at any analysis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Aid was given to ukraine
No quid pro
None of the witnesses had direct first hand account of the call


This circus has been a disaster by the dems and im over here saying “i told ya so”. Oh and the IG report is dropping soon. Enjoy

When I see statements like this it really makes me wonder where you get your news from. If your sources of information are telling you that there were no first-hand accounts of the call, they are lying to you. There were 3 witnesses who testified who listened in on the call. The best defense for Trump here is that all 3 witnesses viewed the calls differently.

Vindman was very troubled by the call and went to NSC lawyers.
Williams was bothered by it, but didn't do anything.
Morrison didn't see anything wrong with the call, but went to NSC lawyers in an effort to lock down the transcript because he was concerned it would leak.

And whatever sources of information are tell you detail incorrectly are telling you everything else incorrectly also.
 
That’s an interesting site there. Not to say that this information is wrong, but they do claim to be non-partisan in the first statement on their about page. Then you look at the backgrounds of all of the people that contribute to the site and the investigations that they’ve undertaken since March of 2017 and you see that they are actually hyper-partisan. Doesn’t make the information itself wrong but it does make you have to look twice at any analysis.
These partisan "watch dog" type groups I think are generally a good thing. As long as the entirety of the FOIA requests become public (not selectively publishing) then it's good oversight. There's groups on both sides that go after information so on balance overall it's healthy I think.

But here's the REALLY interesting part of this release. These are documents that State has refused to turn over to the house as part of the blanket refusal to cooperate. So if a Judge rules these docs are subject to public FOIA requests, it strengthens the Democrat argument that the administration is obstructing the investigation.
 
Then why are 2 ukranians in prison for election meddling in 2016?

Can you show me where Leschenko and Sytnyk are in jail? Or even went to jail?

Yes - a court in Ukraine ruled that the release of the Black Ledger was illegal, and also opined that it's intent was to interfere in the 2016 election. But as far as I can tell, Sytnyk is till the director of NABU. Leschenko is currently a columnist for the Kyiv Post. He even just published his own first hand account of the black ledger saga. They certainly don't appear to be in jail, and I honestly haven' see any account where they went to jail but maybe I missed it.
 
saw something about people starting to not like the impeachment proceedings. independents are starting to not favor it anymore with the percentage that support it dropping a few points.
 
saw something about people starting to not like the impeachment proceedings. independents are starting to not favor it anymore with the percentage that support it dropping a few points.

Remember, can't trust the polls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
Can you show me where Leschenko and Sytnyk are in jail? Or even went to jail?

Yes - a court in Ukraine ruled that the release of the Black Ledger was illegal, and also opined that it's intent was to interfere in the 2016 election. But as far as I can tell, Sytnyk is till the director of NABU. Leschenko is currently a columnist for the Kyiv Post. He even just published his own first hand account of the black ledger saga. They certainly don't appear to be in jail, and I honestly haven' see any account where they went to jail but maybe I missed it.

It's hard to find much information about it, but both were convicted of election tampering and the penalty is prison time. It stands to reason that immediately after the convictions that they were jailed, but probably are disputing the convictions in an appeals court so are currently free. Unian seems to be intentionally vague in how they report on these types of things for some reason.
 
These partisan "watch dog" type groups I think are generally a good thing. As long as the entirety of the FOIA requests become public (not selectively publishing) then it's good oversight. There's groups on both sides that go after information so on balance overall it's healthy I think.

But here's the REALLY interesting part of this release. These are documents that State has refused to turn over to the house as part of the blanket refusal to cooperate. So if a Judge rules these docs are subject to public FOIA requests, it strengthens the Democrat argument that the administration is obstructing the investigation.
I’m perfectly fine with partisan watchdog groups. They serve a great purpose. I’m not fine when they try to brand themselves as non-partisan. They do that for the PR, because partisanship is viewed as bad in the media and people hear partisan and just dismiss the information. As I said, information is good, just know where the analysis is coming from when you read it.
 
Then why are 2 ukranians in prison for election meddling in 2016?

They are not in prison, they as members of Ukraine parliament can not be indicted so they got off, even though found guilty. Ukraine and Russia meddled in 2016, it is not an either, or situation.
 
It's hard to find much information about it, but both were convicted of election tampering and the penalty is prison time. It stands to reason that immediately after the convictions that they were jailed, but probably are disputing the convictions in an appeals court so are currently free. Unian seems to be intentionally vague in how they report on these types of things for some reason.

I agree, it's hard to find information - but I don't think you're correct when you say they were "convicted" as that sounds criminal. The Kyiv post article describes it as an "administrative case" filed by another lawmaker. This doesn't appear to be the equivalent to a jury trial and prison time though I know zero about Ukrainian law.
 
They are not in prison, they as members of Ukraine parliament can not be indicted so they got off, even though found guilty. Ukraine and Russia meddled in 2016, it is not an either, or situation.

So saying Ukraine and Russia both meddled in 2016 is like saying that both Picasso and my 6 year old like to paint. I think Fiona Hill did an excellent job in her testimony of explaining this. Conflating the actions of several individual Ukrainians with a top down effort ordered by Putin is absurd. Particularly when you realize that this entire narrative - that Ukraine was meddling - was started by Putin and Russian intelligence. Now, if you're deep into believing that US intelligence are the bad guys and that Putin and Russian Intelligence are the good guys, then I'm not sure what to tell you.

Also, if public statements by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump is evidence of meddling - as Nunes and crew claim - then there is a HUGE list of countries that "meddled". In July 2016, the Washington Post collected 61 "not very positive" things foreign leaders had said about Trump.
 
To answer the OP, indirectly ... NONE of the [non-material] witnesses know. Seriously.

BTW, Gaetz nailed how I utterly feel in this whole thing. And the more the Democrats go down this path, the more they will alienate moderates and critically thinking, classic Liberals like myself, and even Democratic voters.

It's slipping, because people are hearing how none of this is real. It's all 'show.'

Yes, an Impeachment is 100% political, 0% criminal. No argument. I just don't think the left and US Media realizes that how much this may come back to haunt them. That's why independent councils are well liked, because they are objective, not political.

It's also why I told every Republican to be quiet and stop criticizing Mueller.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
did you not see me criticize trump for these tweets? they are bad and poorly timed.
that said, those tweets were in no way witness intimidation. for someone of your generation, you sure do get triggered alot.
If the Democrats want to impeach Trump for his tweets or say he's Unpresidential, that's a valid argument.

But this Ukranian issue is slowly unraveling on them ... and badly too ... with independents and anyone who is not a hard-core Democratic supporter.
 
So saying Ukraine and Russia both meddled in 2016 is like saying that both Picasso and my 6 year old like to paint. I think Fiona Hill did an excellent job in her testimony of explaining this. Conflating the actions of several individual Ukrainians with a top down effort ordered by Putin is absurd. Particularly when you realize that this entire narrative - that Ukraine was meddling - was started by Putin and Russian intelligence. Now, if you're deep into believing that US intelligence are the bad guys and that Putin and Russian Intelligence are the good guys, then I'm not sure what to tell you.
The problem with that argument is ... to use your words in reverse ...

"Now you're deep into believing that the Republicans were the 'bad guys' when they questioned the Democrats, then President Obama, on everything from the Georgian War to the US defense postures before the Ukranian War."

Also, if public statements by Ukrainian officials critical of Trump is evidence of meddling - as Nunes and crew claim - then there is a HUGE list of countries that "meddled". In July 2016, the Washington Post collected 61 "not very positive" things foreign leaders had said about Trump.
Ever see the list of NATO members who were absolutely critical about President Obama not only after he refused to deploy THAAD when the Russians deployed S-400, but when he caught caught on-mic in 2012 about it?

President Obama looked like he was not only completely 'in bed' with the Russians, but waiting for the election to cross NATO ... which he did! Sigh ... the Russians have been interfering, and even Podesta was registered as a foreign agent on-behalf of Moscow in Kiev for Constitution's Sake! That's all FOIA the US Media won't cover!

That's why the Russians hacked his about before he became Clinton's campaign manager, because they wanted to know what he was telling the Obama administration when NATO basically barked at the administration saying, "Just WTF are you going to do now? Are you even going to honor our 1990 agreement with Ukraine?!"

Frankly, this level of utter and complete one-sided US Media BS is why we Libertarians are becoming not just non-interference, like Trump is, but utterly and totally isolationist. I mean, demonizing Trump for going non-interference just like Obama totally was until NATO threatened him?

It's beyond hypocrisy at this point, especially since far more career politicians -- of both parties, not just the Democrats, but both -- were far more involved and being paid by Moscow. Trump is so far removed from all that, and just was just the first non-interference candidate the Republicans put up.

Before that, Obama was even more pro-Putin ransacking.
 
Trump sought out (at worst) a political advantage over his opponent. How is this different than any random congressman seeking an endorsement from the NRA, the labor unions, or a donor? All examples are basically just different versions of looking for the same thing: seeking an advantage over their political opponent. Props to the Democrats for bringing it to the forefront, but the basis of it is pretty thin.
 
Trump sought out (at worst) a political advantage over his opponent. How is this different than any random congressman seeking an endorsement from the NRA, the labor unions, or a donor? All examples are basically just different versions of looking for the same thing: seeking an advantage over their political opponent. Props to the Democrats for bringing it to the forefront, but the basis of it is pretty thin.
And it happens constantly at State. It's funny how they are literally picking Trump apart for status quo.

My only 'like' of this whole situation is that by going after Trump, it's going to make it easier to stop it in the future.

But then again, everything from UCF's alleged opex for capex (which was actually more Republican) to the Virginian sexual assault charges (probably the cheeseburger deluxe of left hypocrisy) just goes to show, politicians will be hypocrites ... if we don't hold them accountable.

Right now the US Media isn't holding the left accountable at all. They have carte blanche to be hypocrites. That's why the US Media is heading towards a sub-10% trust rating with the American public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beelit47
Trump sought out (at worst) a political advantage over his opponent. How is this different than any random congressman seeking an endorsement from the NRA, the labor unions, or a donor? All examples are basically just different versions of looking for the same thing: seeking an advantage over their political opponent. Props to the Democrats for bringing it to the forefront, but the basis of it is pretty thin.

He used federal aid money as the leverage. That's why it's different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
Why was it delayed when it had been approved by Congress long ago? Was it because of Ukrainian corruption? If so, why didn’t Trump bring up corruption in his phone calls with Zelensky? Why did corruption only come up with Trump’s favor request? And why did the aid magically get released once Congress starting asking questions and rumors of a whistleblower hit DC?
Clearly you didn’t watch the inquiry hearings since you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Despite your complete ignorance about the proceeding, you’re convinced “this circus has been a disaster.”

Putin has to be laughing out loud when he watches his “Ukraine did it” disinformation campaign used by the GOP members of the intell committee as a Trump life preserver in the impeachment hearings.
It was delayed to await how the new president conducted himself, then released immediately. This is all documented. But yea, let pelosi impeach. Less than 30% of independents support it now and 2020 is going to be a landslide. I told you so.
 
It was delayed to await how the new president conducted himself, then released immediately. This is all documented. But yea, let pelosi impeach. Less than 30% of independents support it now and 2020 is going to be a landslide. I told you so.
It had already passed all of those checks before OMB delayed it. What else ya got?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DaShuckster
ADVERTISEMENT