Where I stand on Trump

#201
#201
vols40 said:
Lol typical lib don't like evidence find "evidence" and surely you don't think Biden has any chance. How many more illegitimate grandchildren will uncle Joe amass between now and the election? How many times does Joe have to lose the nomination? But by all means keep up the good work.
Click to expand...
I don't think that Trump would have been so aggressively searching for dirt on Joe Biden in the Ukraine, and trying to politically damage Biden, if he didn't consider Biden to be a serious threat.

...and do you really want to throw stones in glass houses when your candidate is a man like Donald Trump? How many more of Trump's payoffs to strippers and porn starts are we going to find about between now and November?
 
#202
#202
BowlBrother85 said:
That was absolutely the same course of argument that Trump took against the Obama administration, when they refused to comply with subpoenas during both the "Fast and Furious" and "Benghazi embassy attack" investigations.
Click to expand...

Hey genius people died in those instances. How many lies is Susan Rice going to continue to tell about Banghazi? And How many times did Eric " Obama's wingman" plead the 5th. You are a sick individual to attempt to compare the two. Either sick or don't care that a US Ambassador lost his life after repeated attempts for additional security were denied. SMH
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#203
#203
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think that Trump would have been so aggressively searching for dirt on Joe Biden in the Ukraine, and trying to politically damage Biden, if he didn't consider Biden to be a serious threat.
Click to expand...

Did he shake down Ukraine with 1billion until they fired a prosecutor who was investigating a company his son worked for or not? Pretty sure he's on tape saying this very thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol and Obsessed
#205
#205
BowlBrother85 said:
I don't think that Trump would have been so aggressively searching for dirt on Joe Biden in the Ukraine, and trying to politically damage Biden, if he didn't consider Biden to be a serious threat.

...and do you really want to throw stones in glass houses when your candidate is a man like Donald Trump? How many more of Trump's payoffs to strippers and porn starts are we going to find about between now and November?
Click to expand...

And how did that work out for Republicans during Clinton years? Here's to the next 5 "Stormy" years.
 
#206
#206
vols40 said:
Did he shake down Ukraine with 1billion until they fired a prosecutor who was investigating a company his son worked for or not? Pretty sure he's on tape saying this very thing.
Click to expand...
That is not what is on the tape, that I believe you are referencing at all... the fact is, that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired for NOT prosecuting corruption. He failed to obtain convictions of any major political figures during his tenure. His removal was supported by the entire EU. He was not prosecuting corruption, he was a party to it.

There is evidence, albeit circumstantial, that Donald Trump did withhold $391 million in Congressionally-authorized military aid to the Ukraine, so he could use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a favor for his re-election campaign. That constitutes an abuse of power. Defendants are convicted frequently in this country on purely circumstantial evidence. Nothing in a judge's jury instructions in the United States ever says that evidence must be the result of first-hand testimony. Juries are also allowed to make inferences when arriving at a verdict.
 
#207
#207
vols40 said:
And how did that work out for Republicans during Clinton years? Here's to the next 5 "Stormy" years.
Click to expand...
Clinton was already popular when the Monica Lewinsky scandal began. His approval ratings were in the high 50's in early 1998... and they did go up after he was impeached. However, Trump is only popular within his own party. Trump's Real Clear Politics Average Approval Rating has still never been above the 46.2% that he was elected with in November of 2016.
 
#208
#208
BowlBrother85 said:
That is not what is on the tape, that I believe you are referencing at all... the fact is, that the Ukrainian General Prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was fired for NOT prosecuting corruption. He failed to obtain convictions of any major political figures during his tenure. His removal was supported by the entire EU. He was not prosecuting corruption, he was a party to it.

There is evidence, albeit circumstantial, that Donald Trump did withhold $391 million in Congressionally-authorized military aid to the Ukraine, so he could use it as leverage against their President's willingness to perform a favor for his re-election campaign. That constitutes an abuse of power. Defendants are convicted frequently in this country on purely circumstantial evidence. Nothing in a judge's jury instructions in the United States ever says that evidence must be the result of first-hand testimony. Juries are also allowed to make inferences when arriving at a verdict.
Click to expand...

Circumstancial is the new hearsay? And please stop with the Dem taking points about Joe Biden ever standing against corruption. Hunter had zero experience yet made millions. Then he didn't pay taxes what are old Joe's thoughts on this? Why did Joe leave Hunter out of the Biden Christmas photo? Are you saying that the Hunter Biden corruption should not be investigated? Pretty selective I see.
 
#209
#209
BowlBrother85 said:
Clinton was already popular when the Monica Lewinsky scandal began. His approval ratings were in the high 50's in early 1998... and they did go up after he was impeached. However, Trump is only popular within his own party. Trump's Real Clear Politics Average Approval Rating has still never been above the 46.2% that he was elected with in November of 2016.
Click to expand...
You are obviously wasting your time complaining about him then. No way in Hell he gets re-elected since he is so unpopular. He will be gone soon enough .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush and vols40
#210
#210
BowlBrother85 said:
Clinton was already popular when the Monica Lewinsky scandal began. His approval ratings were in the high 50's in early 1998... and they did go up after he was impeached. However, Trump is only popular within his own party. Trump's Real Clear Politics Average Approval Rating has still never been above the 46.2% that he was elected with in November of 2016.
Click to expand...

Then how did he ever get elected? Lol. Your such an amateur.
 
#211
#211
1972 Grad said:
You are obviously wasting your time complaining about him then. No way in Hell he gets re-elected since he is so unpopular. He will be gone soon enough .
Click to expand...

Yes only 25-30% of AA approve of the job the President is doing. He's surely a gonner.
 
#212
#212
37L1 said:
McConnell doesn't have a need to compromise.

So you are saying this was just a fruitless power play by Pelosi to try to exert her nonexistent influence on the Senate?
Click to expand...
His need could be trying to get the whole truth........LOL, who am I kidding? The truth is the last thing Trump and McConnell want known.
 
#213
#213
vols40 said:
Circumstancial is the new hearsay? And please stop with the Dem taking points about Joe Biden ever standing against corruption. Hunter had zero experience yet made millions. Then he didn't pay taxes what are old Joe's thoughts on this? Why did Joe leave Hunter out of the Biden Christmas photo? Are you saying that the Hunter Biden corruption should not be investigated? Pretty selective I see.
Click to expand...
I'm saying that the Republican narrative, which goes something like this: "Joe Biden lobbied to have Viktor Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden" is a lazy one, and not supported by the facts. The activity for which Burisma Holdings was under investigation, focused solely on activity that was alleged to have taken place BEFORE Hunter Biden was involved with them.

FACT: The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma. However, it said that the period under investigation was from 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden in 2014. Hunter Biden has NEVER been a part of any investigation involving the Ukraine and Burisma Holdings.
 
#214
#214
luthervol said:
His need could be trying to get the whole truth........LOL, who am I kidding? The truth is the last thing Trump and McConnell want known.
Click to expand...

Maybe you right the Senate should call Alexander Chulapa? Would Nancy and Chuck be ok with that?
 
#215
#215
BowlBrother85 said:
I'm saying that the Republican narrative, which goes something like this: "Joe Biden lobbied to have Viktor Shokin fired because Shokin was investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden" is a lazy one, and not supported by the facts. The activity for which Burisma Holdings was under investigation, focused solely on activity that was alleged to have taken place BEFORE Hunter Biden was involved with them.

FACT: The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma. However, it said that the period under investigation was from 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden in 2014. Hunter Biden has NEVER been a part of any investigation involving the Ukraine and Burisma Holdings.
Click to expand...

Fact is now talking points? Got it. Maybe the Dems can impeach the President a couple more times before the election?
 
#216
#216
vols40 said:
Maybe you right the Senate should call Alexander Chulapa? Would Nancy and Chuck be ok with that?
Click to expand...
I don't know who that is but I would be okay with it.
I would love for the truth to be known.
 
#219
#219
vols40 said:
Lol then why did Schift not permit this in the House proceedings?
Click to expand...
Again, I don't know who it is. Maybe he felt it was not relevant to the proceedings. Trump forbade the testimony of the witnesses with the most knowledge.
 
Last edited:
#220
#220
vols40 said:
Fact is now talking points? Got it. Maybe the Dems can impeach the President a couple more times before the election?
Click to expand...
Everything after the word "FACT" comes from a public statement issued by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
 
#221
#221
luthervol said:
Again, I don't know who it is. Maybe he felt it was relevant to the proceedings. Trump forbade the testimony of the witnesses with the most knowledge.
Click to expand...

Says you but the Transcript for anyone who can read and comprehend says otherwise.
 
#224
#224
BowlBrother85 said:
Everything after the word "FACT" comes from a public statement issued by the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Click to expand...

This "Bureau" that was started in 2014? Under the Administration who lost their election at a clip of nearly 70%? Is this the Bureau your speaking of?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top