User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:52:12 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He talks about the pin heads at Fake News CNN also, are they his opponents? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: 
If Biden isn't his opponent then why is Trump talking about him on Twitter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:52:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:53:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Romney's former CIA adviser is now on the BOD of Burisma Holdings, it's looking like team Never Trump is corrupt as fuck, just like their establishment democrat friends and the Biden family. Trump is threatening some really big money, should have pulled those security clearances, and not trusted the GOPe. Joseph Cofer Black was in charge of tracking al-Qaeda from 1998 to 2001, after they attacked us he was promoted by GWB  , and now he's sitting on the BOD of Burisma Holdings. CIA guy with enough Ukrainian connections to get onto the BOD of a Ukrainian NG producer. I bet he had nothing to do with the 2016 election, and Romney hates Trump because of his tweets.Bongino laid it all out on his podcast/youtube today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:53:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He was cleared criminally, but impeachment is a political matter, and not beholden to the same standards. Again, try reading the whole thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:54:17 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Except that one gets impeached for 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' not for politics Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: He was cleared criminally, but impeachment is a political matter, and not beholden to the same standards. Again, try reading the whole thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:54:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He got elected, that's why he's being impeached. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:55:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is he being impeached? I thought Pelosi said that they are continuing the investigation that has been ongoing since he was elected. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He got elected, that's why he's being impeached. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:55:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Trump is threatening BIG MONEY looking into Ukraine.
I bet they have been sweating him looking that direction and had a plan to bring it all down once he did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:55:51 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would one just focus on the transcript? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:55:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, and no one is making the claim that the transcript by itself is the onus for the investigation against Trump Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Why would one just focus on the transcript? Impeachment was declared prior to Pelosi seeing the transcript. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he said because impeachment was already a conclusion with the Democrats. Now that the transcript doesn't contain what they claimed, the must come up with another reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:58:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is that based upon your reading of campaign finance law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:59:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell that to Andrew Johnson. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: He was cleared criminally, but impeachment is a political matter, and not beholden to the same standards. Again, try reading the whole thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 7:59:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Moving the goal post Impeachment was declared prior to Pelosi seeing the transcript. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he said because impeachment was already a conclusion with the Democrats. Now that the transcript doesn't contain what they claimed, the must come up with another reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Why would one just focus on the transcript? Impeachment was declared prior to Pelosi seeing the transcript. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he said because impeachment was already a conclusion with the Democrats. Now that the transcript doesn't contain what they claimed, the must come up with another reason. Pelosi didn't have the full text prior to their opening up the impeachment inquiry, but she knew the gist of the complaint. That being said, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it doesn't change the withholding of aid and the favor asked the in transcript. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:00:14 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are they running for president? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:00:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Not a fucking thing.
Except for asking for help looking into Crowdstrike (a Ukrainian company) that for some mysterious reason has the DNC servers that they claim were hacked but that the DNC wouldn't allow the Feebs to look at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:00:59 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the whole non-whistleblower nonsense is 2nd or 3rd hand information compiled with media reports (sounds familiar huh?) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Why would one just focus on the transcript? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:01:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your findings clearly aren't Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Is that based upon your reading of campaign finance law?
How so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:02:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No but they sure are giving the dims free campaign aid Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Are they running for president? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:03:17 PM EDT
[#19]
So klinton, Biden, and the whole gang can commit all types of crimes all around the globe but as soon as Trump mentions that "someone should look into it" he becomes the Bond villain?
I could start to understand if Trump was demanding that a Trump Hotel be built in Kiev or that one of his kids gets a 50K per month job sitting on a Ukrainian gas co. board but pointing out that there was corruption and possible crimes and asking foreign leaders to cooperate with our Justice dept? What if Trump was on tape boasting like an arrogant ass about having a prosecutor (investigating him or his family) removed from office like creepy Joe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:03:50 PM EDT
[#20]
It's not what he said, it's what he didn't say. He didn't say the things that they said he said, nor did he say the things that they wanted him to say. And that pisses them off no end. HOW DARE HE not act like the person they are trying to convince people he is???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:04:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Wow. They spun the hell out of it during the evening news.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:05:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So klinton, Biden, and the whole gang can commit all types of crimes all around the globe but as soon as Trump mentions that "someone should look into it" he becomes the Bond villain? I could start to understand if Trump was demanding that a Trump Hotel be built in Kiev or that one of his kids gets a 50K per month job sitting on a Ukrainian gas co. board but pointing out that there was corruption and possible crimes and asking foreign leaders to cooperate with our Justice dept? What if Trump was on tape boasting like an arrogant ass about having a prosecutor (investigating him or his family) removed from office like creepy Joe? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:07:07 PM EDT
[#23]
Someone made up that 2 whores pissed on a bed.
Oh wait! Someone made up that Trump said he would withhold foreign aid if they did not investigate Biden’s criminal activity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:07:09 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. They spun the hell out of it during the evening news. Be vigilant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:08:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Really? Another thread on this topic? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:09:09 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What law? He asked a foreign head of state to look into how a foreign investigation was closed out. Why are you so hung up on a foreign corruption investigation? How did Biden manage to get that shut down again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:10:15 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How the fuck is that moving the goalpost? If you are going to misapply logical fallacies then at least try to make your own argument somewhat consistent. Pelosi didn't have the full text prior to their opening up the impeachment inquiry, but she knew the gist of the complaint. That being said, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it doesn't change the withholding of aid and the favor asked the in transcript. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Why would one just focus on the transcript? Impeachment was declared prior to Pelosi seeing the transcript. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he said because impeachment was already a conclusion with the Democrats. Now that the transcript doesn't contain what they claimed, the must come up with another reason. Pelosi didn't have the full text prior to their opening up the impeachment inquiry, but she knew the gist of the complaint. That being said, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it doesn't change the withholding of aid and the favor asked the in transcript. What favor did trump request and how was it related to the aid? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:10:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tell that to Andrew Johnson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:10:55 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The outcome will be the same if the dims actually adopt the articles and send it to the senate, that is if the senate even takes it up Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Tell that to Andrew Johnson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:13:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How so? Looking into why an investigation was shut down, illegally mind you, doesn't constitute a campaign contribution |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:15:58 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Campaign contributions ?????? Looking into why an investigation was shut down, illegally mind you, doesn't constitute a campaign contribution Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
How so? Looking into why an investigation was shut down, illegally mind you, doesn't constitute a campaign contribution |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:17:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Nothing that I’ve seen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:18:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do contributions only constitute tangible contributions per the law? I thought dombocrats wanted transparency and justice |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:19:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So justice is now a non tangible campaign contribution? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Do contributions only constitute tangible contributions per the law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:24:18 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly, and there is a legally prescribed way to go about that. [If you do not understand the difference between the two, seek elucidation via Black’s Law Dictionary.] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:26:23 PM EDT
[#36]
muh peach 45
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:29:38 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are strawman arguments all you have? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:31:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just conflated political with legal. You get to choose only one. [If you do not understand the difference between the two, seek elucidation via Black’s Law Dictionary.] Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Exactly, and there is a legally prescribed way to go about that. [If you do not understand the difference between the two, seek elucidation via Black’s Law Dictionary.]
No, there is a legal way of investigating political corruption by a past elected official that would not potentially run afoul of campaign finance law. Perhaps you should seek some education on the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:32:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are dem talking points all you have ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Are strawman arguments all you have? Can't come up with anything huh? It's okay. I know this shit can be confusing. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:34:21 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
im not a trump fan... however, this is what i think is going on (other things too prolly). ever been nauseated to the point that you want to throw up but it doesnt happen because its just right and the edge, so you suffer and eventually sort of force yourself the throw up, just to get it over with? thats whats going on with the dems, they want to impeach trump so bad they cant stand it (or try to impeach) regardless if they can actually get it done, which they cant. so finally with this last issue, pelosi has given up the ghost and gone all in because there is so much pressure from the left, its impossible to forego, even though is is likely to damage the dems as much or more than trump. and i think there is also a plan to kill two birds with one stone, as in knock uncle joe off is perch. the problem is who will replace him? warren? the money boys dont want her so who does that leave? there are no decent candidates in the mass of idiots in the dem group. the 2020 election, if the current usual suspects are the ones that end up running, is gonna be a bloody messy knock-down all out brawl. The bat shit crazy left is pushing an agenda no rational democrat, who wants the party to be representative of the citizenry, will support. That includes donors. But more importantly it includes a big chunk of citizenry who might consider themselves democrats. Pelosi lost control. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:39:32 PM EDT
[#41]
We were promised Trump threatening to withhold aid unless biden was investigated.
Now what do we have. One can construe a connection between withholding aid and the call. 
What was the favor Trump asked for and how did it relate to aid? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:39:50 PM EDT
[#42]
He is exposing Deep State corruption in Ukraine.
Legality of Trump's actions is irrelevent to the corrupt plotters. The "whistleblower" is reportedly from the CIA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:53:07 PM EDT
[#43]
It's all about the sound bites and what each team believes will move the needle for power next year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 8:59:34 PM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:01:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This has been widely reported. Aid was help up on the direction of Trump before the call, the request by Trump was made during the all, and after the call the aid was release in part. Whether or not the quid pro quo argument is convincing is a separate question on whether not not there is the specter of quid pro quo. Regarding aid more directly, unless a document has been produced that connects it to the meeting, that is baseless innuendo. To the thread's question then, there are no solid grounds for impeachment to be built upon at the moment, and the Ukraine topic isn't changing that. This is also likely why they appear to be shifting away from this topic of Ukraine and onto taxes for the next news cycle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:12:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How the fuck is that moving the goalpost? If you are going to misapply logical fallacies then at least try to make your own argument somewhat consistent. Pelosi didn't have the full text prior to their opening up the impeachment inquiry, but she knew the gist of the complaint. That being said, what Pelosi knew and when she knew it doesn't change the withholding of aid and the favor asked the in transcript. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:14:52 PM EDT
[#47]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:23:25 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly, and there is a legally prescribed way to go about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yeah except the DoJ has already stated that what he asked for has no value to his campaign. Stop buying what a low level NJ judge (Napolitano) tells you. He is always wrong
The DOJ is part of the executive branch, which has an explicit bias, which is why how they handled it is a point of inquiry. As to the relative value such an investigation by Ukraine has, there is little doubt that such an investigation would be quite valuable to Trump, given that he has already used those allegations against Biden. This is a political question now, and the standards for impeachment are not the same a criminal complaint. Just so happens, one of Biden's accomplishments was to get a prosecutor fired for investigating his son. Let's find out. POTUS stated that Bill Barr, head of the DOJ and top prosecutor will be contacting the Ukrainian counterparts. Sounds like how it should be done as Barr will involve the appropriate people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:31:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are dem talking points all you have ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Are strawman arguments all you have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2019 9:46:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Not a damn thing!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File
Attached File