America under President Trump

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Boges said:

I'm parroting a transcript that was released by the White House and a Whistleblower complaint from a member of the intelligence community. 

Nothing that you're saying about this story is accurate and honest though Boges.

At every turn you're just adamant that you have incontrovertible evidence that nothing Biden and his son did even had the hint of impropriety, Biden was doing the whole world a favour by firing that prosecutor who was [by your first accusation weak on prosecuting corruption and by your second accusation, which was a total 180, he was actually corrupt himself] and that everything Trump did was unnecessary, sinister, and totally related to the aiding in the election.

And how do you know all of this Boges? You don't. It's absolutely impossible for any of us to know any of this. We just have to be able to assign a reasonable level of credibility to what we hear based on who's been caught lying and which stories make more sense. And your sources have already been caught in several lies about material facts in this case, plus they're following the most unlikely storyline possible (that nothing Biden did had the hint of impropriety), and their case against Trump is based on their own speculation of what his motives were. I can tell you for certain that he's motivated by the fact that he has endured 3 years of investigations and accusations for a crime he didn't commit, while Biden committed an obvious crime and faces no repercussions.

[Boges]

30 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1 Can you find the quote from the transcript where he said that the investigation of an obvious crime had anything to do with the upcoming election? You need to cite that Boges.

2 The whistleblower's own statement said that "they talked to people with first hand knowledge of the conversation". 

3 When Obama left the Whitehouse he made access to secret information easier for hundreds of people, resulting in an unprecedented amount of leaks. Conversations between the President and all other world leaders, not just that particular phone call, were all moved to more secure servers.

1) So he's only concerned with corruption when it involves potential political rivals? 

2) Yes but they match the transcript. So he wasn't lying or wrong. 

3) I claim Obama Derangement Syndrome. 

[WestCanMan]

47 minutes ago, Boges said:

1) So he's only concerned with corruption when it involves potential political rivals? 

2) Yes but they match the transcript. So he wasn't lying or wrong. 

3) I claim Obama Derangement Syndrome. 

1) Being concerned with blatant corruption at that level isn't unusual. Biden went out and admitted that he used US aid as a weapon to destroy the career of someone who may have been leading an investigation into his own son. And what other corruption are you referring to? The Russian collusion that didn't happen? 

Picture this Boges. You know that you didn't commit a specific crime. Let's say for example it's collusion with Russia. You've seen the evidence, you know it's an absurd accusation by a bitter political rival, but there's an investigation, even though the FBI knows that they are using bogus evidence to start the whole thing. It's only a political hitjob disguised as an investigation into a crime. People you know are thrown in jail for things that the FBI knew about more than 20 years ago, and they are offered reduced sentences if they testify against you. But in the end, absolutely no evidence of collusion turns up. And you knew all along it wouldn't turn up because you knew you didn't do it. Then there's an obstruction of justice accusation based on the investigation into the first fake investigation. 

Would it bother you that the person who started the investigation was known to have committed a felony but didn't get properly investigated? To know that witnesses in her case were given immunity for basically providing no testimony? How is that even a real thing? 

Now you see a video of a former VP bragging about committing what was most likely a crime, and he's not getting investigated?

I can see why Trump wants him investigated, but you are pretending that you don't see it. 

Boges - Trump was proven innocent of collusion and obstruction. Hillary is known to be guilty of colluding with Russians and mishandling classified information and the destruction of subpoenaed evidence. Biden appears to be guilty of using his VPOTUS badge to interfere in a foreign country's legal processes to get his son out of hotwater or at least to punish someone who he has a vendetta against. 

Can you see the problem with your awkward pov?

2) You are saying now that you don't understand the difference between first-hand knowledge and everything else? That's a problem.

FYI that person doesn't know any more than anyone else from reading the transcript. People who were in the room would have more of an idea of whether Trump was pressuring the other person than you and I do when we read it. There's a big difference between "Let's eat, Grandpa!" and "Let's eat Grandpa". Proper punctuation can go a long way to helping you understand a conversation but not nearly as well as if you're actually hearing it in person. No one that was there thought it was inappropriate, and on the surface it doesn't have even remotely the same level of impropriety as Biden's own description of what he did in the Ukraine. Biden basically said that he most likely committed a serious crime. 

3) If you leave out the word "Obama" I think you're onto something.

Edited September 27, 2019 by WestCanMan

[Yzermandius19]

Obama Derangement Syndrome was a thing. Republicans played right into his hands all the time as well. There are counter-productive haters for all presidents, but Trump has more of them than any recent president, and that's his biggest asset. With enemies like that, Trump doesn't need friends.

Edited September 27, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[egghead]

 

2 hours ago, Boges said:

1) So he's only concerned with corruption when it involves potential political rivals? 

2) Yes but they match the transcript. So he wasn't lying or wrong. 

3) I claim Obama Derangement Syndrome. 

Only tim thomas has Obama Derangement Syndromeis, from what I hear. 

Dems don't understand is that the call, right or wrong, is not impeachment-worthy, and I highly doubt they know what is the whistleblower complainting 

[Boges]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

1) Being concerned with blatant corruption at that level isn't unusual. Biden went out and admitted that he used US aid as a weapon to destroy the career of someone who may have been leading an investigation into his own son. And what other corruption are you referring to? The Russian collusion that didn't happen? 

Picture this Boges. You know that you didn't commit a specific crime. Let's say for example it's collusion with Russia. You've seen the evidence, you know it's an absurd accusation by a bitter political rival, but there's an investigation, even though the FBI knows that they are using bogus evidence to start the whole thing. It's only a political hitjob disguised as an investigation into a crime. People you know are thrown in jail for things that the FBI knew about more than 20 years ago, and they are offered reduced sentences if they testify against you. But in the end, absolutely no evidence of collusion turns up. And you knew all along it wouldn't turn up because you knew you didn't do it. Then there's an obstruction of justice accusation based on the investigation into the first fake investigation. 

Would it bother you that the person who started the investigation was known to have committed a felony but didn't get properly investigated? To know that witnesses in her case were given immunity for basically providing no testimony? How is that even a real thing? 

Now you see a video of a former VP bragging about committing what was most likely a crime, and he's not getting investigated?

I can see why Trump wants him investigated, but you are pretending that you don't see it. 

Boges - Trump was proven innocent of collusion and obstruction. Hillary is known to be guilty of colluding with Russians and mishandling classified information and the destruction of subpoenaed evidence. Biden appears to be guilty of using his VPOTUS badge to interfere in a foreign country's legal processes to get his son out of hotwater or at least to punish someone who he has a vendetta against. 

Can you see the problem with your awkward pov?

2) You are saying now that you don't understand the difference between first-hand knowledge and everything else? That's a problem.

FYI that person doesn't know any more than anyone else from reading the transcript. People who were in the room would have more of an idea of whether Trump was pressuring the other person than you and I do when we read it. There's a big difference between "Let's eat, Grandpa!" and "Let's eat Grandpa". Proper punctuation can go a long way to helping you understand a conversation but not nearly as well as if you're actually hearing it in person. No one that was there thought it was inappropriate, and on the surface it doesn't have even remotely the same level of impropriety as Biden's own description of what he did in the Ukraine. Biden basically said that he most likely committed a serious crime. 

3) If you leave out the word "Obama" I think you're onto something.

1) I can show you ample evidence Biden and his son were not under investigation and that the entire western world believed that prosecutor was corrupt but you'd just call it Fake News, so it appears we're at an impasse. 

2) I'll concede the whistleblower's knowledge of events aren't first-hand. But they're completely accurate based on the memo that was released on the call. And since the White House released the transcript, I'll assume that the agreed upon summary of what the call was about. 

3) Kay whatevs. 

[Boges]

Just now, egghead said:

Dems don't understand is that the call, right or wrong, is not impeachment-worthy, and I highly doubt they know what is the whistleblower complainting 

See that's the Trump pivot. 

The Whistleblower is wrong!!!!!

Ok the Whistleblower is right but who cares, not a crime. 

Apparently the Whistleblower is even right about the transcript being moved to a different server. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-white-house/index.html

If no crime took place, why did it need to be moved to a server for National Security purposes? 

[bush_cheney2004]

11 minutes ago, Boges said:

If no crime took place, why did it need to be moved to a server for National Security purposes? 

 

Doesn't matter...many Democrats have wanted to move for Trump's impeachment regardless of the facts on the ground as a matter of political policy since Trump was inaugurated.   So let them have their impeachment, and live with the political consequences.

Bill Clinton actually committed a proven crime (perjury in a federal court deposition), but he was still not convicted in the Senate.

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, Boges said:

1) I can show you ample evidence Biden and his son were not under investigation and that the entire western world believed that prosecutor was corrupt but you'd just call it Fake News, so it appears we're at an impasse. 

That would be awesome. Buuuut, how could it be considered fake news? It's not just a story by CNN saying that "Biden and his son were not under investigation and that the entire western world believed that prosecutor was corrupt" is it? I will literally laugh my ass completely off if you tell me that a CNN article or something that Adam Schiff said = ample evidence.

Quote

2) I'll concede the whistleblower's knowledge of events aren't first-hand. But they're completely accurate based on the memo that was released on the call. And since the White House released the transcript, I'll assume that the agreed upon summary of what the call was about.

The people who think it was legal for Hillary to collude with Russians to start the collusion investigation with zero evidence now think that Trump can't even talk to the Ukranian President about a crime with ample evidence (biden admitting to slamming a Billion dollar quid pro quo down the Ukraine's throat = ample evidence of a crime). 

[Boges]

31 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That would be awesome. Buuuut, how could it be considered fake news? It's not just a story by CNN saying that "Biden and his son were not under investigation and that the entire western world believed that prosecutor was corrupt" is it? I will literally laugh my ass completely off if you tell me that a CNN article or something that Adam Schiff said = ample evidence.

This is an obscure European site. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

Quote

But Ukrainian prosecutors and anti-corruption activists with knowledge of the matter argue that the timeline of developments in the Burisma case and Shokin's stint as chief prosecutor simply does not fit the narrative being put forward by Trump and his allies.

Moreover, they say that Shokin himself was the biggest obstacle standing in the way of the investigation.

If anything Shokin was protecting Hunter Biden. 

 

Quote

The people who think it was legal for Hillary to collude with Russians to start the collusion investigation with zero evidence now think that Trump can't even talk to the Ukranian President about a crime with ample evidence (biden admitting to slamming a Billion dollar quid pro quo down the Ukraine's throat = ample evidence of a crime). 

HDS!

Edited September 27, 2019 by Boges

[WestCanMan]

38 minutes ago, Boges said:

Apparently the Whistleblower is even right about the transcript being moved to a different server. https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/27/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-white-house/index.html

If no crime took place, why did it need to be moved to a server for National Security purposes? 

There was a transcript of a call to the Australian PM that was leaked. I think that all phone calls with foreign leaders are stored on that same server now.

[WestCanMan]

8 minutes ago, Boges said:

This is an obscure European site. 

https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html

If anything Shokin was protecting Hunter Biden. 

 

HDS!

These links draw focus away from when Hunter was working there, when the investigation started, why it ended, etc. 

They just focus on Trump and the call. Everyone knows he called.

[Boges]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

These links draw focus away from when Hunter was working there, when the investigation started, why it ended, etc. 

They just focus on Trump and the call. Everyone knows he called.

No it focuses on the prosecutor, who is the focus or a portion of the call. 

Who, might I add, Trump praised. 

Quote

Activists say the case had been sabotaged by Shokin himself. As an example, they say two months before Hunter Biden joined Burisma's board, British authorities had requested information from Shokin's office as part of an investigation into alleged money laundering by Zlochevskiy. Shokin ignored them.

Kaleniuk and AntAC published a detailed timeline of events surrounding the Burisma case, an outline of evidence suggesting that three consecutive chief prosecutors of Ukraine -- first Shokin’s predecessor, then Shokin, and then his successor -- worked to bury it.

"Ironically, Joe Biden asked Shokin to leave because the prosecutor failed [to pursue] the Burisma investigation, not because Shokin was tough and active with this case," Kaleniuk said.

 

[egghead]

3 hours ago, Boges said:

If no crime took place, why did it need to be moved to a server for National Security purposes? 

C'mon, you can do better than that , Moving the calls' records to a server means nothing here. We only need to know does WH have the right to do that.

[Argus]

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The people who think it was legal for Hillary to collude with Russians to start the collusion investigation with zero evidence

The idea that Clinton 'colluded' with Russia, who hated her, to start an investigation is insane. It is the product of a deranged mind.

20 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

now think that Trump can't even talk to the Ukranian President about a crime with ample evidence (biden admitting to slamming a Billion dollar quid pro quo down the Ukraine's throat = ample evidence of a crime). 

There is no evidence. And the point being why would Trump bother to talk to a foreign leader about some alleged minor crime which happened years ago? Presidents don't talk to other presidents about such minutia. The entire purpose of this was to pressure Ukraine not to simply investigate the Bidens but to publicly do so and cast whatever aspersions on them they could in order to help Trump deal with a political rival. If you think Trump and his pet troll Giulliani would have been bothered about this if Biden wasn't likely to run against him you're even dumber and more deranged than he is.

 

[Argus]

21 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Doesn't matter...many Democrats have wanted to move for Trump's impeachment regardless of the facts on the ground as a matter of political policy since Trump was inaugurated.   So let them have their impeachment, and live with the political consequences.

Bill Clinton actually committed a proven crime (perjury in a federal court deposition), but he was still not convicted in the Senate.

I love this talking point of Trumpists that the four year long investigation of Clinton and the impeachment for lying about an affair was important, but Trump's treason and pressuring foreign leader to intervene in the US election is unimportant.

I wonder how they'd respond if Trump himself was subpoenas and forced to testify and answer questions about his past affairs. He would certainly lie about it. Would the Trumpists accept him being impeached them? Not a chance in hell. Their tiny heads would be exploding.

[Hal 9000]

So?

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

I love this talking point of Trumpists that the four year long investigation of Clinton and the impeachment for lying about an affair was important, but Trump's treason and pressuring foreign leader to intervene in the US election is unimportant.

 

Guess again...the other Clinton article of impeachment passed by the House was for obstruction of justice.  No conviction in the Senate.

 

Quote

I wonder how they'd respond if Trump himself was subpoenas and forced to testify and answer questions about his past affairs. He would certainly lie about it. Would the Trumpists accept him being impeached them? Not a chance in hell. Their tiny heads would be exploding.

 

Not any different from the wannabe Trump haters living north of the border....heads exploding since Trump became president.  

[egghead]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I love this talking point of Trumpists that the four year long investigation of Clinton and the impeachment for lying about an affair was important, but Trump's treason and pressuring foreign leader to intervene in the US election is unimportant.

When ???? 

[Argus]

5 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Guess again...the other Clinton article of impeachment passed by the House was for obstruction of justice.  No conviction in the Senate.

It was over the same goddamn thing: Monica Lewinski. I wonder how many times Trump would lie and obstruct justice rather than admitting his many affairs with strippers, porn starts and prostitutes. I'm sure you'd accept that as a cause of impeachment if the Democrats forced him to testify about t hat and he lied, right?

Quote

Not any different from the wannabe Trump haters living north of the border....heads exploding since Trump became president.  

Heads not exploding. Just utter contempt for a clod-kicking hillbilly with a grade 3 education and the sophistication of a kindergarten kid being worshiped by the FOX crowd.

Edited September 28, 2019 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

2 hours ago, Argus said:

It was over the same goddamn thing: Monica Lewinski. I wonder how many times Trump would like and obstruct justice rather than admitting his many affairs with strippers, porn starts and prostitutes. I'm sure you'd accept that as a cause of impeachment if the Democrats forced him to testify about t hat and he lied, right?

 

Well, in your rabid zeal to get Trump (from Canada ?), you have failed to stay in the bounds of play.   Trump can only be impeached for actions while in office.   He is free to lie all he wants about virtuous sex workers (that's what they call them in Canada, right?).

Here is one of Bill Clinton's favourite extra-marital squeezes...Gennifer Flowers:

 

In several ways, Bill Clinton made Trump's presidency a real possibility...Clinton set the bar quite low.

Thanks Bill !!

 

Quote

Heads not exploding. Just utter contempt for a clod-kicking hillbilly with a grade 3 education and the sophistication of a kindergarten kid being worshiped by the FOX crowd.

 

Then it is worth every minute, just to drive the "sophisticated" cucks crazy on both sides of the border.   

Go Trump Go !

 

Edited September 28, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Dougie93]

44 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Go Trump Go !

No Senate in the history of the republic has ever removed a President from office, not even Andrew Johnson, arguably the worst President of all time.

Bring on the impeachment monkey hacks, let them hoist themselves on their own petards.

 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Well, in your rabid zeal to get Trump (from Canada ?), you have failed to stay in the bounds of play.   Trump can only be impeached for actions while in office.   He is free to lie all he wants about virtuous sex workers (that's what they call them in Canada, right?).

No, he's not. Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair but for lying about it. If Trump were subpoenaed and ordered to answer questions about his previous affairs TODAY he'd unquestionably lie about them ,and then he could be charged for perjury and obstructing justice.

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

In several ways, Bill Clinton made Trump's presidency a real possibility...Clinton set the bar quite low.

For what? For having an affair while in office? Most of the Republicans at the time had affairs. Newt Gingrich was having an affair even while he helped impeach Clinton. The guy who was supposed to replace him turned out to be having an affair too.

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Then it is worth every minute, just to drive the "sophisticated" cucks crazy on both sides of the border.  

So it's worth having a clueless moron in office damaging America just so he can tick off all those Americans you hate?

[bush_cheney2004]

16 minutes ago, Argus said:

No, he's not. Clinton wasn't impeached for having an affair but for lying about it. If Trump were subpoenaed and ordered to answer questions about his previous affairs TODAY he'd unquestionably lie about them ,and then he could be charged for perjury and obstructing justice.

 

More fantasy thinking....why would Trump be "ordered" to answer questions about who he was banging years before his presidency.   This is just another example of TDS....trying anything to get him out of office.    Try doing it the old fashioned way...by winning an election.

 

Quote

For what? For having an affair while in office? Most of the Republicans at the time had affairs. Newt Gingrich was having an affair even while he helped impeach Clinton. The guy who was supposed to replace him turned out to be having an affair too.

 

Ergo, impeachment is a political process, having little to do with your moral indignation about his lifetime behaviours and actions.

The Democrats have only now gotten enough guts to even try, while the Republicans voted to impeach.

 

Quote

So it's worth having a clueless moron in office damaging America just so he can tick off all those Americans you hate?

 

Sure is...and all the wannabes in Canada too.    America has survived far worse than Trump, and became the most powerful nation on this planet.

Canada...not so much.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bring on Trump's  impeachment...drag it out for many, many months right into an election year.   It will just be another exercise in media dominating Rope-A-Dope® fueling Trump's base and re-election campaign, while sucking oxygen out of the Democrats candidates and legislative initiatives.

This Canadian-American wannabe (David Frum) knows the score well:

 

Quote

A Realist’s Guide to Impeachment

It’s unlikely that impeachment will find 67 votes in the Senate for removal. The process will almost certainly end with Trump acquitted, and acquitted in a reelection year. The political consequences of acquittal are obviously unpredictable but could be favorable to Trump’s reelection: Trump supporters may be mobilized, Trump opponents demoralized, and Democratic presidential candidates distracted from issues that may be more potent at the voting booth.

Meanwhile, impeachment is likely to do Trump less and less political harm the longer it lasts. As the Trump presidency daily proves, people can get used to anything.