• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

 
 
 
lady proceeded to enumerate US help to Ukraine - $3Bil in security and millitary assistance.
Plus EU $15bil (suspect some of it loans)

Now how much Russia gave to Ukraine over 25 years? - $250bil, 10 fucking billions dollars every fucking year of their fucking "independence"

She continued about Revolution of dignity? forgetting to enumerate heroes of that revolution, I will name one - Stepan Bandera, google it, or ask someone in Poland or Israel.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
article said:
Sheadded: “I think we're still waiting to see the overwhelming evidence and oncewe see that maybe it will convince us that more information is needed, or not.We don't know, because I haven't had that presented yet.”
Click to expand...

*Context Goggles on*

Sen. Ernst: 'We need to see absolute proof before considering allowing for more evidence.'
Click to expand...

'We need to see absolute proof before considering allowing for more evidence, because if the House has proof we'll have to drag the proceedings off into the weeds before we kill it, but if they don't then the less we say about there being more information we could take a look at, the better'.
 
barbos said:
Democrat House lady (Val Demings) in Senate called pronounced Yanukovich as "Nanuvokich".
Click to expand...

Yeah, she mangled that, but she still did better than on her first day. It look like a couple of the House managers went up there without having practiced their presentation before. They really should have had Amash, he could have done that much.

Mostly they were very good though. Schiff is great, just like he was at the House hearings, in summarizing everything.
 
blastula said:
barbos said:
Democrat House lady (Val Demings) in Senate called pronounced Yanukovich as "Nanuvokich".
Click to expand...

Yeah, she mangled that, but she still did better than on her first day. It look like a couple of the House managers went up there without having practiced their presentation before. They really should have had Amash, he could have done that much.
Click to expand...
She just read (for the first time) what somebody else wrote. I bet she can't find Ukraine on the map, let alone understands anything she said.
Mostly they were very good though. Schiff is great, just like he was at the House hearings, in summarizing everything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I watched few excerpts CNN selected, he was good in them. I just cringe every time they talk about Russian aggression because I know it's a total lie.
 
ZiprHead said:
Half-Life said:
ZiprHead said:
Crickets...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

There's nothing in that clip that says "Biden shookdown Ukraine for his son's job".

Yes, a LEGAL quid pro quo was asked for of Ukraine. In exchange for our monetary aid, Ukraine needed to clean up the corruption in the country. One of the corrupt things was prosecutor Sholkin who was specifically not prosecuting corruption. You still have not made any connection between Biden and illegal acts.

The money Trump withheld had specifically been cleared by the DOD's requirement that they meet previously agreed upon anti-corruption goals, which they did. The GAO determined this was a violation of the Impoundment Act. It was done to personally aid Trump and smear a political opponent. Seeking foreign aid for an election is illegal. Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain is abuse of power.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the Trump needs foreign aid to defeat Biden or any of the busload of clown wannabees in November? That's what this impeachment bullshit is all about. An attempt by the left to grab power at any cost.
 
angelo said:
What makes you think the Trump needs foreign aid to defeat Biden or any of the busload of clown wannabees in November? That's what this impeachment bullshit is all about. An attempt by the left to grab power at any cost.
Click to expand...

Read it again. He didn't say that he thinks Trump needs illegal foreign aid to win. In fact, what we think he needs to win is entirely beside the point. It is only what Trump thinks he needs in order to win that is relevant here. Unfortunately, "tiny hands Trump" has proven that he is an insecure pansy over and over. He likely thinks he needs every single edge and back ally deal to win.
 
Oh I see, angelo. So it's just a coincidence that Trump betrayed democracy in his impeachable quest for power. We have to ignore it. Because. Democrats.
 
angelo said:
ZiprHead said:
There's nothing in that clip that says "Biden shookdown Ukraine for his son's job".

Yes, a LEGAL quid pro quo was asked for of Ukraine. In exchange for our monetary aid, Ukraine needed to clean up the corruption in the country. One of the corrupt things was prosecutor Sholkin who was specifically not prosecuting corruption. You still have not made any connection between Biden and illegal acts.

The money Trump withheld had specifically been cleared by the DOD's requirement that they meet previously agreed upon anti-corruption goals, which they did. The GAO determined this was a violation of the Impoundment Act. It was done to personally aid Trump and smear a political opponent. Seeking foreign aid for an election is illegal. Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain is abuse of power.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the Trump needs foreign aid to defeat Biden or any of the busload of clown wannabees in November? That's what this impeachment bullshit is all about. An attempt by the left to grab power at any cost.
Click to expand...

What makes you think, regardless of whether he "needs it" or not that the fact of him doing it isn't still an abuse of power, and a criminal act?

Is it any less a criminal act if a billionaire Rob's a bank at gunpoint? Just because they don't "need it"?
 
angelo said:
ZiprHead said:
There's nothing in that clip that says "Biden shookdown Ukraine for his son's job".

Yes, a LEGAL quid pro quo was asked for of Ukraine. In exchange for our monetary aid, Ukraine needed to clean up the corruption in the country. One of the corrupt things was prosecutor Sholkin who was specifically not prosecuting corruption. You still have not made any connection between Biden and illegal acts.

The money Trump withheld had specifically been cleared by the DOD's requirement that they meet previously agreed upon anti-corruption goals, which they did. The GAO determined this was a violation of the Impoundment Act. It was done to personally aid Trump and smear a political opponent. Seeking foreign aid for an election is illegal. Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain is abuse of power.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the Trump needs foreign aid to defeat Biden or any of the busload of clown wannabees in November?
Click to expand...
I can't read Trump's mind. All we have is the evidence where Trump wanted a public announcement that Ukraine was investigating Biden for corruption... and the lack of any reference from Trump regarding corruption in Ukraine prior to Zelensky getting elected.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
angelo said:
ZiprHead said:
There's nothing in that clip that says "Biden shookdown Ukraine for his son's job".

Yes, a LEGAL quid pro quo was asked for of Ukraine. In exchange for our monetary aid, Ukraine needed to clean up the corruption in the country. One of the corrupt things was prosecutor Sholkin who was specifically not prosecuting corruption. You still have not made any connection between Biden and illegal acts.

The money Trump withheld had specifically been cleared by the DOD's requirement that they meet previously agreed upon anti-corruption goals, which they did. The GAO determined this was a violation of the Impoundment Act. It was done to personally aid Trump and smear a political opponent. Seeking foreign aid for an election is illegal. Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain is abuse of power.
Click to expand...

What makes you think the Trump needs foreign aid to defeat Biden or any of the busload of clown wannabees in November?
Click to expand...
I can't read Trump's mind. All we have is the evidence where Trump wanted a public announcement that Ukraine was investigating Biden for corruption... and the lack of any reference from Trump regarding corruption in Ukraine prior to Zelensky getting elected.
Click to expand...

...and Biden entering the race and polling at numbers that put him in the lead and in the lead of Trump...

...and a history of Trump making up conspiracy theories and memes against previous opponents who started to challenge in the polls...

To be clear, I know you know, Jimmy. I just think when we talk to conservatives we need to bring up what Trump did to conservatives such as Ted Cruz. These facts are in their brain somewhere even if unfairness of slights against Democrats cannot permeate the bubble.

I will go one step further even. Evidence of Trump's involvement in making up such conspiracy theories ought to be included in the impeachment trial and/or arguments. Senator Ted Cruz needs to be on a hot seat for letting Trump make up stuff constantly even about his family.

Interestingly, when Trump talked about the conspiracy theory as Cruz surged in the polls, he referenced the National Enquirer and said of the story coming out "I had nothing to do with it." Oh really? Who even accused him of that at the time?

But it should be mentioned:
This is not the first time the Enquirer has injected itself into the presidential campaign. A March Enquirer piece alleged multiple extramarital affairs for Cruz — an accusation that his campaign vehemently denied. Trump also landed a rare endorsement from the publication in March of this year, and has written several op-eds for the magazine. In addition to Cruz, the Enquirer has attacked many of Trump’s other campaign rivals, including Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson and Hillary Clinton.

David Pecker, the CEO of the Enquirer’s parent company, American Media Inc., has been said to have a close personal relationship with Trump. New York Magazine called them “friends for years,” and the New York Daily News reported that they are “very close.” Trump has voiced support for Pecker in the past, endorsing him to take over Time magazine in 2013. It is worth noting that the Enquirer has also run several less-than-flattering stories on Trump in the past, especially in the 1990s before Pecker came on as CEO.
Click to expand...
https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-tall-tabloid-tale/

Speaking of Pecker, this brings us roundabout to Stormy Daniels.

But bringing up Cruz would be more effective.
 
blastula said:
barbos said:
Democrat House lady (Val Demings) in Senate called pronounced Yanukovich as "Nanuvokich".
Click to expand...

Yeah, she mangled that, but she still did better than on her first day. It look like a couple of the House managers went up there without having practiced their presentation before. They really should have had Amash, he could have done that much.

Mostly they were very good though. Schiff is great, just like he was at the House hearings, in summarizing everything.
Click to expand...

Schiff got high praise for his presentations from Lindsey Graham during a break in the hearings yesterday. I couldn't agree more. He said he wove a very clear "tapestry" of how the events unfolded. Schiff is the one they tended to stay awake for. Also Zoe Lofgren held my attention. The other managers that I saw gave more or less typical, cadenced House floor speeches. Schiff was very convincing in how he offered the evidence they actually have, in short excerpts of video and quotes from the House investigation, and then ("wait for it"): "Wouldn't you like to read the actual documents for what was said? I'd love to read them to you, but I can't. But you can have them just for the asking, in something called a subpeona." (Paraphrased). It was brilliant and clear and inescapable.
 
Last edited:
You think that was condescending? I noticed Moscow Mitch yesterday announcing the schedule, "and we will take a break for dinner at 6pm IF NEEDED.

Fuck you, you prick.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Graham's praise was wonderful... beautiful... condescending... hand waving...
Click to expand...

For someone who's been Trump's main attack dog/golfing buddy (i.e.; knows when to look the other way when Trump pushes someone's ball out of the way) it was extremely generous. He got hand-wavy about calling witnesses using the excuse that he didn't want to turn the trial into a circus. But that was after he explained that if Dems could call their witnesses then the Reps would want to call Biden. Which everyone knows could have no other purpose than to turn the trial into a circus. He might be thinking that would look bad for the Repubs. He also said he doesn't buy many of Trump's claims about Ukraine having Clinton's server and the Russians not having hacked the Dems. It almost seems as though Schiff's argument had convinced him, but he's still hoping for a hail mary play by Trump's defense team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom