whistleblower complaint against Trump - Page 100 - Talk About Marriage
Politics This is the place to discuss politics

User Tag List

 2019Likes
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #1486 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 11:48 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by Always Learning View Post
And there is still only one direct witness to the call that has testified and his wishes to change the text of the transcript amount to a big nothing.
You think the call is the only important thing or the only piece of evidence? Not the meetings that happened afterward with Ukrainians that included Sondland, Vindman, Hill, and Bolton where the requirements of Ukraine were discussed? Those were even more important since they represent the actions that followed up and implemented what Trump previewed on the phone call, it shows what Sondland understood he was supposed to demand of Ukraine.

What about the scheme to smear and oust an innocent US ambassador, using Russia $ to bribe a US Representative, and also involving Fox News people?

And what about Rick Perry pushing certain people including Republican donors on the Ukrainian state-owned gas company and getting a 50-year deal?

Just conveniently glossing over those elements of the scandal? Or Fox News doesn't mention those in their talking points so you don't know?


Last edited by kari2; 11-11-2019 at 11:53 PM.
kari2 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1487 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-11-2019, 11:51 PM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 326
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Rick Perry gets his buddies a 50-year gas contract in Ukraine: https://apnews.com/6d8ae551fb884371a2a592ed85a74426

What did Rick Perry do on his trip to Ukraine's presidential inauguration? Now we know:

"Two political supporters of U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry secured a potentially lucrative oil and gas exploration deal from the Ukrainian government soon after Perry proposed one of the men as an adviser to the country’s new president.

Ukraine awarded the contract to Perry’s supporters little more than a month after the U.S. energy secretary attended Zelenskiy’s May inauguration. In a meeting during that trip, Perry handed the new president a list of people he recommended as energy advisers. One of the four names was his longtime political backer Michael Bleyzer.

A week later, Bleyzer and his partner Alex Cranberg submitted a bid to drill for oil and gas at a sprawling government-controlled site called Varvynska. They offered millions of dollars less to the Ukrainian government than their only competitor for the drilling rights, according to internal Ukrainian government documents obtained by The Associated Press. But their newly created joint venture, Ukrainian Energy, was awarded the 50-year contract because a government-appointed commission determined they had greater technical expertise and stronger financial backing, the documents show."
kari2 is offline  
post #1488 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 12:10 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 3,755
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by kari2 View Post
OK, then who are the defense witnesses who were actually present in the meetings with Ukraine that are refuting all this?? ...crickets.... There aren't any.

The only ones that seem to be refuting a bit are the Ukrainians who say they didn't feel threatened because obviously if Trump is not removed, they have to not piss him off if they want to buy more weapons or get more aid.
I thought you were among the group saying these hearing are like a federal grand jury where witnesses supporting the impeachment are called. Shifty Schiff didn't call any defense witnesses. You heard the rulz where Schiff has to approve all witnesses called by the Republicans. BTW, in respect to Ukraine, who could be a better defense witness than the alleged victim saying the offense never happened. Face it Kari, if you were on a jury and the owner of the store said the defendant never robbed the store, do you think the jury would still find the defendant guilty of robbing the store?

"The facts have never mattered less than they do today. We're living in a time where the truth has been so diminished in value, even those at the top of government (and the media) are quite comfortable with the truth being whatever they can convince people to believe",
Raymond Reddington.
VladDracul is online now  
 
post #1489 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 07:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 403
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
I thought you were among the group saying these hearing are like a federal grand jury where witnesses supporting the impeachment are called. Shifty Schiff didn't call any defense witnesses. You heard the rulz where Schiff has to approve all witnesses called by the Republicans. BTW, in respect to Ukraine, who could be a better defense witness than the alleged victim saying the offense never happened. Face it Kari, if you were on a jury and the owner of the store said the defendant never robbed the store, do you think the jury would still find the defendant guilty of robbing the store?
Actually the witnesses most likely to be friendly to the defense have been asked to appear, and refused or ignored subpoenas.

And for the umpteenth time, the rules are what were passed in 2015 by the Republicans under Boehner. If Republicans thought they were fine while in the majority; well they shouldn’t screech when they have to live with them in the minority. Or perhaps they weren’t acting in good faith then, and passed rules that were unfair to the minority?

In reference to the store scenario. It is quite likely a jury could still find the defendant guilty. Is it reasonable to conclude the shop owner is answering under duress or in fear of reprisal? Is there security camera footage of the theft? Witnesses who testify they were present for planning the robbery? Others in the shop who saw the theft? Even if the theft was ultimately a failure, the defendant could still be found guilty of attempted robbery, or conspiracy to commit. Both of which, in a legal sense, are just as serious crimes with similar sentences to a successful attempt.
DownButNotOut is online now  
post #1490 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 10:00 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,437
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownButNotOut View Post
Actually the witnesses most likely to be friendly to the defense have been asked to appear, and refused or ignored subpoenas.

And for the umpteenth time, the rules are what were passed in 2015 by the Republicans under Boehner. If Republicans thought they were fine while in the majority; well they shouldn’t screech when they have to live with them in the minority. Or perhaps they weren’t acting in good faith then, and passed rules that were unfair to the minority?

In reference to the store scenario. It is quite likely a jury could still find the defendant guilty. Is it reasonable to conclude the shop owner is answering under duress or in fear of reprisal? Is there security camera footage of the theft? Witnesses who testify they were present for planning the robbery? Others in the shop who saw the theft? Even if the theft was ultimately a failure, the defendant could still be found guilty of attempted robbery, or conspiracy to commit. Both of which, in a legal sense, are just as serious crimes with similar sentences to a successful attempt.
This was posted by Brit Hume as stated to him by Boehner on October 24, 2019: "I just spoke to John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. He says he made no changes to rules governing conduct of impeachment hearings."

Last edited by karole; 11-12-2019 at 10:06 AM.
karole is offline  
post #1491 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 10:08 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,854
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by karole View Post
This was posted by Brit Hume as stated to him by Boehner on October 24, 2019: "I just spoke to John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. He says he made no changes to rules governing conduct of impeachment hearings."
He gave committees the ability so subpoena, so they did.
Tasorundo is online now  
post #1492 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 10:24 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 403
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by karole View Post
This was posted by Brit Hume as stated to him by Boehner on October 24, 2019: "I just spoke to John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. He says he made no changes to rules governing conduct of impeachment hearings."
The point is January 2015 is the most recent time the rules were voted on and adopted. Yes, the major change was allowing the committee chair to issue subpoenas without a full committee vote. The exact thing McCarthy stormed the scif about. Those rules also govern and allow the initial fact-finding to be held in private by the relevant committees.

To the rules have been followed to the letter, and the last update was a Republican one.

Perhaps they are conflating the initial investigatory steps with the final impeachment hearings and vote?
DownButNotOut is online now  
post #1493 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 10:44 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,799
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by karole View Post
This was posted by Brit Hume as stated to him by Boehner on October 24, 2019: "I just spoke to John Boehner who told me that the only rules change he made was to allow committee chairmen to issue subpoenas on their own authority without committee votes. He says he made no changes to rules governing conduct of impeachment hearings."
So obviously he CHOSE not to change anythings else when he could have made more changes.
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #1494 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 11:02 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 3,755
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownButNotOut View Post
Is there security camera footage of the theft? Witnesses who testify they were present for planning the robbery?
In this case the security camera footage (transcripts) lack evidence of a robbery and the witnesses are presuming the guy was in the store to rob the place because he was hanging around and asking question without making a purchase: with the exception of one key witness saying the alleged robber told him he had no intention of robbing the place. I think the alleged robber delayed purchase of the goods because, based on the history of corruption by the store, he had reason to believe the corruption may be continuing among the emplyees and he withheld purchases until their was some assurance the corruption was on the wane and our alleged robber was getting what he was paying for.
What the defense of the alleged robber will draw attention to is a former assistant manager of his company withholding a major purchase from the store until it made employee changes beneficial to the assistant manager.

"The facts have never mattered less than they do today. We're living in a time where the truth has been so diminished in value, even those at the top of government (and the media) are quite comfortable with the truth being whatever they can convince people to believe",
Raymond Reddington.
VladDracul is online now  
post #1495 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 12:12 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,799
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Giuliani would make a great defense witness. why doesn't Trump want G- to testify on Trump's behalf. Since he was so onvolved in diplomacy with Ukraine he would have a lot of firsthand knowledge.

NextTimeAround is online now  
post #1496 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 12:19 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: thinking outside the box, its quiet here
Posts: 922
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

This inquisition isn't going to end soon.

No it is not a trial inquisition is the only
thing that might fit. It is not fair in my
viewpoint to have one person decide who
gets to testify and who doesn't. Not being
to call a witness in your defense reute
a testimony is wrong. I still have not heard anything
just he said she said.

Impeachment, impeachment that has been said since
day one. To much vitriol and hatred, even people being
triggered by a red hat. Shoes, two scoops of ice cream
and all of the other nonsense. Sharpies included

The president is a co equal branch. The president
doesn't have to bow down and let Congress know
everything he does. He hires and fires people
he appoints. When he wants, Ambassadors included.

Even if this inquisition ends in articles of impeachment
Then goes to the Senate and is dismissed based on evidence
there will still be cries of cover up. If Trump is reelected then
it will continue, and continue. With out a doubt. Why ?

They should try policies that help the American people not
socialism and making promises that they cannot pay for.
Voting works well also.

The above is my viewpoint at least until someone tries to
silence it.

Never place anyone on a pedestal it hurts more when they fall off
sa58 is offline  
post #1497 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 12:39 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 6,799
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by sa58 View Post
This inquisition isn't going to end soon.

No it is not a trial inquisition is the only
thing that might fit. It is not fair in my
viewpoint to have one person decide who
gets to testify and who doesn't. Not being
to call a witness in your defense reute
a testimony is wrong. I still have not heard anything
just he said she said.

Impeachment, impeachment that has been said since
day one. To much vitriol and hatred, even people being
triggered by a red hat. Shoes, two scoops of ice cream
and all of the other nonsense. Sharpies included

The president is a co equal branch. The president
doesn't have to bow down and let Congress know
everything he does. He hires and fires people
he appoints. When he wants, Ambassadors included.

Even if this inquisition ends in articles of impeachment
Then goes to the Senate and is dismissed based on evidence
there will still be cries of cover up. If Trump is reelected then
it will continue, and continue. With out a doubt. Why ?

They should try policies that help the American people not
socialism and making promises that they cannot pay for.
Voting works well also.


The above is my viewpoint at least until someone tries to
silence it.
do you like medicare? public education? not always having to pay a toll road? do you like knowing that the local fire brigade will come directly to your house instead of checking as to whether you have this year's fire premium? ...... and so on.
NextTimeAround is online now  
post #1498 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 01:07 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North East US
Posts: 616
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by DownButNotOut View Post
Source?

Because O'Brien said as much on Face The Nation on Sunday.
https://www.cbsnews.com/video/1110-face-the-nation/

YouTube with a bookmark at the pertinent point:
https://youtu.be/ixLruw77ma8?t=397
https://www.dailywire.com/news/media...jor-correction

Once again you read things that are not there. He never said Vindman was removed.
Always Learning is offline  
post #1499 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 01:13 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North East US
Posts: 616
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by kari2 View Post
You think the call is the only important thing or the only piece of evidence? Not the meetings that happened afterward with Ukrainians that included Sondland, Vindman, Hill, and Bolton where the requirements of Ukraine were discussed? Those were even more important since they represent the actions that followed up and implemented what Trump previewed on the phone call, it shows what Sondland understood he was supposed to demand of Ukraine.

What about the scheme to smear and oust an innocent US ambassador, using Russia $ to bribe a US Representative, and also involving Fox News people?

And what about Rick Perry pushing certain people including Republican donors on the Ukrainian state-owned gas company and getting a 50-year deal?

Just conveniently glossing over those elements of the scandal? Or Fox News doesn't mention those in their talking points so you don't know?
I am pretty sure he is undergoing Impeachment hearings because of what was said on the call. What all of the other people you like to refer to said to one another is not evidence that Trump told Ukraine to investigate Biden or else you get no money. No on of them can testify that Trump told them to do anything of the sort. Even Sondland stated in his latest revision that he "presumed" there to be a a quid pro quo.

When this gets out of the Democrat Circus it will not stand up in a court like setting where the actual facts rule.
Always Learning is offline  
post #1500 of 2208 (permalink) Old 11-12-2019, 01:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: North East US
Posts: 616
Re: whistleblower complaint against Trump

Quote:
Originally Posted by kari2 View Post
You think the call is the only important thing or the only piece of evidence? Not the meetings that happened afterward with Ukrainians that included Sondland, Vindman, Hill, and Bolton where the requirements of Ukraine were discussed? Those were even more important since they represent the actions that followed up and implemented what Trump previewed on the phone call, it shows what Sondland understood he was supposed to demand of Ukraine.

What about the scheme to smear and oust an innocent US ambassador, using Russia $ to bribe a US Representative, and also involving Fox News people?

And what about Rick Perry pushing certain people including Republican donors on the Ukrainian state-owned gas company and getting a 50-year deal?

Just conveniently glossing over those elements of the scandal? Or Fox News doesn't mention those in their talking points so you don't know?
I love the way you like to put down Fox News, yet use sources like the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC etc. Like they have never been caught lying about Trump. Never had to retract multiple False stories, never actually fired repoters for making up stuff. It really is quite entertaining to watch you distort reports to fit your narrative.

You have no idea if I even watch Fox News, its actually pretty insulting!
Always Learning is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome