Trump Leading Witness Revenge Acts

[vols40]

The White House released a summary of the call, not a verbatim transcript, and it didn't help Trump's case. Once again, Sen. Alexander's statement points that out.

Release the ICIG transcript.

 

[BowlBrother85]

FACT CHECK: It was Obama who denied foreign aid to Ukraine, not Trump, causing the nation to be threatened by Russia

Obama withheld lethal aid and Russia took Crimea so he should be impeached?

Per mediabiasfactcheck.com:

"News Target is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information."

And....

"Overall, we rate News Target a quackery level pseudoscience and a tin foil hat conspiracy website, as well as extreme right wing biased. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet."

Good lord... you are desperate if you are going on that site. Sheesh.

 

[vols40]

Per mediabiasfactcheck.com:

News Target is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information.

And....

Overall, we rate News Target a quackery level pseudoscience and a tin foil hat conspiracy website, as well as extreme right wing biased. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet.

Good lord... you are desperate if you are going on that site. Sheesh.

Lol always to your go to. Did Obama give Ukraine Lethal aid or not?

 

[vols40]

Per mediabiasfactcheck.com:

"News Target is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information."

And....

"Overall, we rate News Target a quackery level pseudoscience and a tin foil hat conspiracy website, as well as extreme right wing biased. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet."

Good lord... you are desperate if you are going on that site. Sheesh.

Blankets and MRE are not lethal aid

 

[BowlBrother85]

Lol always to your go to. Did Obama give Ukraine Lethal aid or not?

You post a link to a quack site... and expect a response to it? Is that really where you get your information? That explains a lot. Wow.

 

[vols40]

You post a link to a quack site... and expect a response to it? Is that really where you get your information? That explains a lot. Wow.

It explains you dodged the question. If it's a routinely wrong publication the simply answer where they cite national sentinal in that Obama did not provide Ukraine Lethal aid.

We are waiting

 

[vols40]

You post a link to a quack site... and expect a response to it? Is that really where you get your information? That explains a lot. Wow.

PolitiFact - Matt Gaetz misleads about Obama's record on Ukraine military aid

From politifact

It's so easy exposing you as a farce.
Still waiting for your response to Schift not releasing the ICIG transcript. I have asked you point blank several times with no response on your part.

 

[37L1]

I don't believe you. Were you at Woodstock and Altamont concert , also?

Nope, but since Bobby Kennedy appeared at my university for his campaign, it was easy for me to get there and get in.

 

[37L1]

What specifically did Gordon Sondland testify to that has been proven wrong? Were they really "assumptions" or well-informed and probable conclusions based on what he had been told? Of course, keeping Sen. Lamar Alexander's statement in mind, where Alexander also makes it clear that he believes Donald Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine as a means of encouraging the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his son.

As for the portion of the statement that I placed in bold, that is hyperbole which makes it clear that you are a partisan. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the July 25th phone call and gave first hand information of the call, which concurred with the summary of the call that the White House had already made public.

Finally, it is an abuse of power for an elected official to position U.S. policy (in this case, the withholding of pledged aid to an ally) as a means of encouraging a personal favor (in this case, publicly announcing an investigation into a potential election opponent). That is precisely what Trump did. Just as Sen. Alexander's statement specifically mentioned:

"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' - Senator Lamar Alexander (R - Tennessee)

Every time you post a partial quote from Lamar Alexander, you need to include the most important part of his quote, which you convienently always leave out. It's his conclusion, you know, the point of the whole statement.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.


“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.


“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”


Does anyone wonder why you left this part out? Give it up BB. You're sounding the same as you did when the results came in from the Mueller Report. Where are the House Articles of Impeachment from that one?

 

[NCFisher]

What specifically did Gordon Sondland testify to that has been proven wrong? Were they really "assumptions" or well-informed and probable conclusions based on what he had been told? Of course, keeping Sen. Lamar Alexander's statement in mind, where Alexander also makes it clear that he believes Donald Trump withheld aid to the Ukraine as a means of encouraging the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden and his son.

As for the portion of the statement that I placed in bold, that is hyperbole which makes it clear that you are a partisan. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the July 25th phone call and gave first hand information of the call, which concurred with the summary of the call that the White House had already made public.

Finally, it is an abuse of power for an elected official to position U.S. policy (in this case, the withholding of pledged aid to an ally) as a means of encouraging a personal favor (in this case, publicly announcing an investigation into a potential election opponent). That is precisely what Trump did. Just as Sen. Alexander's statement specifically mentioned:

"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' - Senator Lamar Alexander (R - Tennessee)

Is it an "assumption" or "well-informed and probable conclusion" when Sondland says Trump never stated what he (Sondland) presumed, but in fact declared the opposite?

Your bolding it doesn't impact the statement as factual. In fact, you avoid it by stating Vindman was on the call (which we all know), but don't acknowledge no one else on the call shared Vindman's concern or usurping hubris.

So? L. Graham - also a senator - disagrees entirely with Alexander. Those are opinions regarding policy or powers disagreement, not actionable grounds for removing a president.

No; Biden's conflict of interest is obviously in the national interest. We know this because NOW it is being investigated by Congress, Giuliani is turning over whatever he has to DOJ, and media is forced to take an interest. We further know it because THEN, it was a helluva concern to WH officials all the way up to State Dept, and reported on sporadically.

Biden being a presidential candidate does not grant him immunity from scrutiny; the investigation of Trump by Dems using foreign agents and Russian propaganda tell us this. By the same token, If OVERTLY threatening to withhold aid is fine when a Democrat president does it, it is fine when a Republican president does it, correct?

WaPo had just released a piece on Biden's COI days before Trump spoke with Zelensky. His legal team finely detailed the numerous concerns it raised within government and outside it, even causing friend and business partner Chris Heinz to distance himself and Rosemont Seneca from Biden and Archer's joining Burisma. Either presidents may concern themselves with Ukrainian corruption in the exercise of releasing aid, or they may not; which is it?

 

[Purple Tiger]

Vindman is not in anyway covered by any whistleblower laws.

Did you miss the post where I said the Whistleblower law covers people who testify in a such a case? Vindman would be covered, but we now know Trump was lying when he said Vindman was fired.

 

[AirVol]

Every time you post a partial quote from Lamar Alexander, you need to include the most important part of his quote, which you convienently always leave out. It's his conclusion, you know, the point of the whole statement.

“The Senate has spent nine long days considering this ‘mountain’ of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president’s lawyers, their answers to senators’ questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.


“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.


“Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”


Does anyone wonder why you left this part out? Give it up BB. You're sounding the same as you did when the results came in from the Mueller Report. Where are the House Articles of Impeachment from that one?

He gets winded after reading a couple of lines.

 

[NCFisher]

The intelligence collected by our intelligence community regarding the hacking of the Democratic National Committee was completely unrelated to the Steele Dossier or to the question of collusion. President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin's denial of Russian interference into the 2016 Presidential election campaign (including the hacking of the DNC) on July 16, 2018 in a press conference in Helsinki, Finland when he said the following:

"My people came to me, (Director of National Intelligence) Dan Coats came to me and some others saying they think it's Russia (who hacked the Democratic National Committee). I have President Putin, he just said it's not Russia. I will say this, I don't see any reason why it would be." - President Donald Trump, spoken on July 16, 2018.

Now, here is one simple question for you... if Donald Trump is sure of this, and he has that much trust in Putin and that much distrust in his own intelligence community, including the "Director he had appointed (Dan Coats), then why did Trump backtrack the very next day and (absurdly!) claim that he had simply misspoken? President Trump did a complete 180 degree turn when he was asked about it in front of a White House press pool on July 17, 2018 and claimed that he had actually meant to say "... I will say this, I don't see any reason why it WOULDN'T be." Nobody bought it. While in Helsinki, Trump thought he could get away with siding with Putin, but then he didn't get any cover from Fox News or from Republicans in Congress, so he did this stupid backtrack and tried to blame the press for it - because they should have known what he meant to say... or something like that.

Nonsense; this was always about Trump. Crossfire Hurricane was specifically about investigating connections between the Trump campaign and Russians. The falsified and illegitimate FISA requests and other warrants used to spawn Mueller were entirely about Trump and would not have occurred without the Steele fantasies that "his own intelligence community" bought into, propped up, and inflated while going on a search and destroy junket. As Barr has stated, it was clear in Jan. 2017 the case for investigating Trump had collapsed even as FBI (and DOJ) worked to prop it up. The Mueller probe - which appears to have little of his DNA except his name as token - should have never occurred.

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I think the big picture is this, from day one -- remember, they say, OK, we're not going to -- go to talk to the campaign. We're going to put people in there, wire them up and have these conversations with people involved in the campaign, because that way we'll get the truth.

From the very first day of this investigation, which was July 31, 2016, all the way to its end, September 2017, there was not one incriminatory bit of evidence to come in. It was all exculpatory. The people that they were taping denied any involvement with Russia. Denied the very specific facts that the FBI was -- was relying on.

So what happens? The FBI ignores it, presses ahead, withholds that information from the court, withholds critical exculpatory information from the court while it gets an electronic surveillance warrant.

It also withholds from the court clear cut evidence that the dossier that they ultimately relied on to get the FISA warrant was a complete sham. They -- they -- they hid information about the lack of reliability, even when they went the first time for the warrant. But -- but in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says, I never told -- I never told Steele this stuff. And -- and -- and -- and this was all speculation. And I have zero information to support this stuff.

At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president and the -- well into his administration, after the case collapsed.

But here, to me, is the damning thing. They not only didn't tell the court that what they had been relying on was -- was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, well, we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful. But they don't inform the court that what they're truthful about is that the dossier is -- is false.

So that's hard to explain. And I -- the core statement, in my opinion, by the IG, is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained. And I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. I think it's premature now to reach a judgment on that, but I think that further work has to be done, and that's what Durham is doing. Barr: Why Did The FBI Keep Investigating Trump, Well Into His Administration, After The Case Collapsed? ​

So, I'll answer your question - You mean the same intelligence community, FBI and DOJ that did THAT? Let them screw you over like that, then come tell us what trustworthy, diligent people they are, aight?

 

[NCFisher]

Per mediabiasfactcheck.com:

"News Target is a conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information."

And....

"Overall, we rate News Target a quackery level pseudoscience and a tin foil hat conspiracy website, as well as extreme right wing biased. This is one of the most discredited sources on the internet."

Good lord... you are desperate if you are going on that site. Sheesh.

Good Lord...how do you completely avoid the point - which is pure fact - and attack the messenger? You discredit yourself with a display of intellectual void.

--Did Obama deny lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, even as they begged for them while Russia was actually attacking & invading them, just as he'd denied Poland and CZ Russian-facing missile defense systems because Putin wouldn't like it?

--Did Trump (and Republicans) ensure Ukraine received these lethal weapons in 2017, 2018, and 2019?

 

[hog88]

Did you miss the post where I said the Whistleblower law covers people who testify in a such a case? Vindman would be covered, but we now know Trump was lying when he said Vindman was fired.

No he wouldn't be.

 

[0nelilreb]

Did you miss the post where I said the Whistleblower law covers people who testify in a such a case? Vindman would be covered, but we now know Trump was lying when he said Vindman was fired.

Did Trump say Vindman was fired ? I can’t find it .

 

[n_huffhines]

according to Washington Post journalist Radley Balko, any sort of retribution against Vindman for his testimony is in and of itself an impeachable offense.

“Punishing Vindman for his testimony is itself an impeachable offense,” Balko tweeted. “It’s both retribution for telling the truth and a clear threat to anyone else who might contemplate testifying against Trump or filing a whistleblower complaint.”

Balko is the man, if you're looking for the small government, anti-corruption viewpoint.

 

[lawgator1]

Serves at the pleasure of The Impeached President. It’s not that difficult unless you want to keep the focus on your chronic butthurt syndrome.

fyp

 

[hog88]

fyp

FYI: An impeached President is still President.

 

[GAVol]

FYI: An impeached President is still President.

... And according to Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, a stronger President.

 

[0nelilreb]

FYI: An impeached President is still President.

It’s almost like it served no purpose other than to have an asterisk beside his name in the books .

 

[Jxn Vol]

fyp

Chronic Butthurtedness symptom.

 

[C-south]

Did Trump say Vindman was fired ? I can’t find it .

Is he out of the military? I’d say he’ll probably retires as a Lt Colonel though.

 

[FLVOL69]

fyp

Can’t wait to read your posts come November

 

[BowlBrother85]

Nonsense; this was always about Trump. Crossfire Hurricane was specifically about investigating connections between the Trump campaign and Russians. The falsified and illegitimate FISA requests and other warrants used to spawn Mueller were entirely about Trump and would not have occurred without the Steele fantasies that "his own intelligence community" bought into, propped up, and inflated while going on a search and destroy junket. As Barr has stated, it was clear in Jan. 2017 the case for investigating Trump had collapsed even as FBI (and DOJ) worked to prop it up. The Mueller probe - which appears to have little of his DNA except his name as token - should have never occurred.

ATTORNEY GENERAL BILL BARR: Well, I think the big picture is this, from day one -- remember, they say, OK, we're not going to -- go to talk to the campaign. We're going to put people in there, wire them up and have these conversations with people involved in the campaign, because that way we'll get the truth.​

​

From the very first day of this investigation, which was July 31, 2016, all the way to its end, September 2017, there was not one incriminatory bit of evidence to come in. It was all exculpatory. The people that they were taping denied any involvement with Russia. Denied the very specific facts that the FBI was -- was relying on.​

​

So what happens? The FBI ignores it, presses ahead, withholds that information from the court, withholds critical exculpatory information from the court while it gets an electronic surveillance warrant.​

​

It also withholds from the court clear cut evidence that the dossier that they ultimately relied on to get the FISA warrant was a complete sham. They -- they -- they hid information about the lack of reliability, even when they went the first time for the warrant. But -- but in January, after the election, the entire case collapsed when the principal source says, I never told -- I never told Steele this stuff. And -- and -- and -- and this was all speculation. And I have zero information to support this stuff.​

​

At that point, when their entire case collapsed, what do they do? They kept on investigating the president and the -- well into his administration, after the case collapsed.​

​

But here, to me, is the damning thing. They not only didn't tell the court that what they had been relying on was -- was completely, you know, rubbish, they actually started putting in things to bolster this Steele report by saying, well, we talked to the sources and they appeared to be truthful. But they don't inform the court that what they're truthful about is that the dossier is -- is false.​

​

So that's hard to explain. And I -- the core statement, in my opinion, by the IG, is that these irregularities, these misstatements, these omissions were not satisfactorily explained. And I think that leaves open the possibility to infer bad faith. I think it's premature now to reach a judgment on that, but I think that further work has to be done, and that's what Durham is doing. Barr: Why Did The FBI Keep Investigating Trump, Well Into His Administration, After The Case Collapsed? ​

So, I'll answer your question - You mean the same intelligence community, FBI and DOJ that did THAT? Let them screw you over like that, then come tell us what trustworthy, diligent people they are, aight?

The only thing that is nonsense is your wordy psychobabble. The point of the relevant investigation I was speaking of, was to establish who hacked the DNC... and it was Russia. Trump publicly sided with Putin's denial but then backtracked when Fox News and his fellow Republicans wouldn't cover him for it. Once again, if Trump was confident in siding with Putin's denial in Helsinki, why did he backtrack just 24 hours later? You will never respond to that question. This whole mess of a post, it just an attempt to change the subject to the investigation of collusion, which if you are capable of reading comprehension, is not what I was talking about.

Do you think you sound articulate? You sound pretentious as hell.