|
|
That is so funny that you believe you believe your own bullshit. Both of the Bidens are crooks and his 2 brothers are also crooks. Read Peter Schweitzer's new book, Corruption, and you might learn something about these crooked democrats.Originally Posted by Guisslapp
You can go read the facts I told you elsewhere. Don’t trust me. Go see for yourself.I won't be mislead by a crazy left wing lunatic like you that hates the President. Pam Bondi is telling the truth. Go stick your head back up Schiff's butt. Trump will not be impeached and you're going to see 4 more years of him. Enjoy it.
She didn’t tell you those facts because it would undercut the message she wanted you to take from her presentation.
Your insistence on avoiding information that undercuts your beliefs is exactly why people think Trumpsters are ignorant. You are only proving their point.
75% of voters want witnesses.
https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=3654
Are the Republicans scared of what people will learn? Or are they just scared of not having a good narrative once it is said in the open?
McConnell told GOP senators today that he doesn’t yet have the votes to block witnesses.
The crooked democrats with Pelosi, schiff , and Nadler leading them will always come up with something against Trump. They've been trying to impeach him ever since he won the election. If its not somebody's book or some whistleblower or collusion with russia or a phone call or whatever it is. They hate our President and his conservative policies and will tell lie after lie to try to get him removed. It's the biggest scam in the history of our country. The democrats want this impeachment to keep going until the election. Hopefully the people will see what's going on and re-elect him by a landslide.
The reason they have wanted to impeach him for so long is because of his constantly demonstrated character flaws that keep leading him into these messes. He is unethical. His pattern of unethical conduct started day 1.
Literally on day 1, he cancelled the ethics course that is given to the staff of incoming administrations.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/...e-house-235586
I raised hell about this then because it was clear what it signaled about how he wanted his administration to be run.
Yes, Clinton, Bush, and Obama staff members were all about "ethics" after they took the course.
They were at least orbiting close to it. The current administration is completely unmoored from ethics and is lost in space. Hopefully the next administration can quickly rein this back in.Yes, Clinton, Bush, and Obama staff members were all about "ethics" after they took the course.
As a result of Trump’s unethical behavior the US has now slipped out of the top 20 countries in anti-corruption perception for the first time ever.
https://www.transparency.org/country/USA
Notably, we are now behind United Arab Emirates.
https://www.transparency.org/cpi2019
"What really is significant about the Trump presidency is the way in which he's bending existing norms," said Zoe Reiter of Transparency International. "His lack of transparency regarding his assets, as well as his repeated attempts to undermine the Mueller investigation and attacks on the press, all of this is highly concerning."
And here is a quote from one your favorite sources these days:
"When you compare that to what Trump has done with Trump University, with so many other things, I think there's no comparison between who has engaged in more corruption and who is more likely to continue that if elected President of the United States," Dershowitz said. "So I think what we're doing is we're comparing, we're saying, look, neither candidate is anywhere close to perfect, let's vote for the less bad candidate." And that he "openly embraces fringe conspiracy theories peddled by extremists."
A brief moment of sanity in a career mostly dominated by quackery.
This is willful ignorance and living in a bubble.
Remember, it was Obama that weaponized the Justice Department (including both the CIA and FBI) and the IRS in an attempt to force one-party rule on the USA. This is banana republic stuff.
And much of that partisan effort was routed through the Ukraine, which is why Rudy was there in the first place researching what happened to provide for Trump's defense should the group of never Trumpers (the Mueller report) produce a report that made the corrupt dems in the house start an impeachment proceeding. It was the dems corruption that caused Trump to focus on the Ukraine in the first place.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/435029-as-russia-collusion-fades-ukrainian-plot-to-help-clinton-emerges
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446
Trump was right to put a hold on the aid until he saw some indication that the corruption was going to abate. Only idiots throw good taxpayer money at corrupt officials (or leave money on a tarmac that will be used to kill Americans).
If Trump were holding up aid to make sure Ukraine was fighting corruption, we wouldn’t have a problem (except for Trump’s unprecedented obstruction of Congress). But I doubt he would have obstructed Congress if the evidence didn’t look as bad as what we have seen.
The problem is that all of the evidence shows that he was actually trying to cause corruption to further a personal political interest rather than a US foreign policy interest.
Bold above - Are you saying that Joe Biden would have been a threat to him in the election and he was trying to help his cause by demanding this investigation?
That's what the democrats are saying. Sounds like you've taken up one of their weak talking points. You do realized that he can't be convicted or what he was thinking or not thinking.
This impeachment process could be the first time in American History where there is bi-partisan support from Democrats to acquit the President. There is talk about 4 Democratic senators voting to acquit which would be the first time in US History that the democratic party did not vote as a block. There was already bipartisan support in the House to not move forward with the charges in the first place.
I thought you were smarter than that.Bold above - Are you saying that Joe Biden would have been a threat to him in the election and he was trying to help his cause by demanding this investigation?
That's what the democrats are saying. Sounds like you've taken up one of their weak talking points. You do realized that he can't be convicted or what he was thinking or not thinking.
It isn’t what he is thinking that deserves the conviction, it is what he did. If he just thought about a way to cheat at the election, that isn’t an impeachable offense. It is the fact that he did in fact try to cheat - he acted.
INTENT is almost always an element of a crime - in criminal law, it is called the mens rea. Given that you can’t literally see into the mind of a defendant, mens rea is always inferred from the evidence. In this case, the evidence shows that Trump was trying to implicate a political opponent and cast doubt on Russian interference in 2016 while showing that Ukraine interfered to harm him. These objects are personal political objectives - not national objectives.
The argument that Trump was concerned about corruption in the general sense is contradicted by (1) Trumps past conduct showing lack of concern, (2) how narrowly tailored this request was towards his election messaging, (3) the evidence of his effort to cover this up (including the instruction to everyone with knowledge not to talk or produce documents, (4) the evidence from career civil servants that are intimately familiar with our foreign policy dealings with Ukraine and the shake down of Zelensky, (5) the fact that Trump used such unusual channels to carry out this effort including Rudy’s letter to Zelensky saying that he was representing the president in the personal context, and (6) the fact that what he was asking Zelensky to announce he was investigating (Biden/Ukraine interference) is bunk and believed to be bunk by our intelligence community.
That is a lot of circumstantial evidence of guilt - and as I said, mens rea evidence is almost always circumstantial without an admission. Maybe Bolton could add more clarity one way or another.
I guess that means Dems are less tribal than Republicans. The nonsense that some Republican senators and representatives are saying these days is completely disingenuous and shameful.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
