- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Messages
- 24,831
- Reaction score
- 24,251
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Cat's out of the bag, a "presumption" is an insignificant distinction. Republicans were fishing for anything spinnable.
Remarks like yours drive me crazy.
Like sjmay points out, that was his opening remarks. When questioned about it, he admitted he didn't know it as fact, but presumed it as fact.
It's called confirmation bias!
His correct presumption.
Remarks like yours drive me crazy.
Like sjmay points out, that was his opening remarks. When questioned about it, he admitted he didn't know it as fact, but presumed it as fact.
It's called confirmation bias!
Of course, the lying media, and pundits will not tell you the whole truth. They have an agenda against the president.
How can you trust such unethical sources?
Agreed, except, that isn't what he said was it?
If you know something nobody else does, I suggest you offer to testify.
Honestly, anyone quoting Sondland might as well be ignored since he rescinded his entire testimony
Maybe that is just coincidence?
Maybe Hunter is a criminal in this matter, and it is being made to look the other way around.
Isn't that just as likely?
Did you read my post 273?
Ukraine plans to fire the prosecutor who led investigations into the firm where Joe Biden's son served on the board, a central figure in the activity at the heart of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump, a source told Reuters.
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani has acknowledged meeting the prosecutor, Kostiantyn Kulyk, to discuss accusations against the Bidens.
The decision to sideline someone who played an important role in Giuliani's efforts to find out damaging information about the Bidens comes as Ukraine has tried to avoid getting drawn into a partisan fight in Washington.
...
The source said a decision had been taken to fire Kulyk for failing to show up for an exam that all employees of the General Prosecutor's Office have been ordered to pass to keep their jobs during a clean-up of the prosecution service.
Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka has already fired more than 400 prosecutors, or around a third of all staff.
Not in a verbatim sense, no. But I'm glad you agree with the concept, because that's exactly what happened here.
Trump set up a quid pro quo, it was carried out by his minions, then a whistleblower called him out and he tried to walk it back after the fact.
The only thing that appears related in my view, was the idea that the money would not be released without the concerns of corruption addressed. Now if that corruption included Biden's son, then why would it be off limits?
The standing agreement wasn't by individual, but of corruption itself.
His correct presumption.
Perfect, so if the House is the cops and the senate is the judge/jury,
How the **** is the house complaining that Trump is obstructing justice?
LMAO ok fine...show me how it's correct, corroborate it please.
this is what left wingers think is clever discourse. Utterly pathetic.
If it is so simple, then why is it you're unable to cite any compelling evidence that there was a quid pro quo with regards to the aid, or that a crime was committed?
If you can't even do that, then it's clear who the real simpletons are.
Absolutely, so I guess your take on it, is, bribery is good as long as the person is a dirty crooked rotten slimeball and deserved what he got?
Could it be that oh..I dunno, Joe Biden CONFESSED TO IT ON VIDEO? Think about it for a minute...you want to investigate corruption, and you have Biden confessing to corruption on video, it's perfectly normal to focus on that, and use that as an example....right?
Fair enough, you disagree,
You still haven't explained how 16 witnesses, can not link aid to investigations, bribery, extortion, qpq, anything you want to call it, they've all said, they have no proof of it, how do you explain that?
In this scenario, the suspect is dictating that witnesses remain silent.
You don't think that qualifies? In a general law enforcement investigation would you find this remotely acceptable? A suspect/defendant able to unilaterally suppress evidence against him?
See the Mulvaney video where he admitted to QPQ on live TV
No, they didn't, they literally said when directly asked, they had no proof, nor knowledge of it....
You're still pulling out that completely debunked Biden bull****?
I am saying that the stories about biden being corrupt come from Shokin, who was fired for being corrupt. Why should anyone trust the claims made by Shokin as being honest given the corruption he indulged in?
You're still pulling out that completely debunked Biden bull****?
Yea, I've seen it,theres nothing specific about it...and he literally says, its part of it....so...how much is it a part of....a tiny bit? a large bit? Can you answer that?
It's been pointed out many times to me that this isn't a law enforcement investigation....
But let's take your point and run with it....a gang gets arrested, or pulled in for questioning and the leader...yells LAWYER UP everyone.... is he obstructing justice?
I think maybe you need to actually watch the interviews rather than the fox faux news out takes...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?