Author Topic: And Nancy just said this  (Read 1032 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #35 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:37:10 »
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #35 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:37:10 »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #36 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 09:48:08 »
They exercised Executive privelege just like every other administration in similar inquiries. Nothing corrupt about executive privelege. That’s the way coequal branches of the government work. The whistle blower is immaterial. We had a transcript rather than a third party hear say. Congress DOES NOT have unchallengeable power over another branch namely the Executive branch.

Why wasn’t Obama impeached by his invoking of executive privelege? Because EVERY President invokes it. It is understood except in the case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Let’s use our heads and apply a little history, shall we?

« Last Edit: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:29:11 by Jaime »

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #37 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:54:20 »
They exercised Executive privelege just like every other administration in similar inquiries. Nothing corrupt about executive privelege. That’s the way coequal branches of the government work. The whistle blower is immaterial. We had a transcript rather than a third party hear say. Congress DOES NOT have unchallengeable power over another branch namely the Executive branch.

Why wasn’t Obama impeached by his invoking of executive privelege? Because EVERY President invokes it. It is understood except in the case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Let’s use our heads and apply a little history, shall we?

Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6tOgF_w-yI

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #38 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:56:00 »
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.

POTUS did nothing illegal.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #38 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 11:56:00 »
Pinterest: GraceCentered.com

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #39 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 12:52:24 »

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #39 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 12:52:24 »



Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #40 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:19:17 »
POTUS did nothing illegal.
i am open to that. But the transcript of Trumps conversation with Zelenski makes it looks to my like he did do something illegal. If we had witnesses from the Executive Dept who would rebut or reinterpret the story I think I see told by the transcript, instead of seeming to confirm it, then I would change my view. All I have seen from the White House and Republicans so far is name calling, yammering about the rules, cries of second hand information when witnesses with first hand information are ordered to not testify, cries of prejudice, trying to expose and making veiled threats to the whistleblower, when it is their duty to protect him or her.

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7190
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #41 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:25:09 »
Not sure that would specifically apply to relations between two different branches of government, rather than civil crimes, but the principal is the same. The White House corruptly withheld documents and testimony, and intimidated the whistleblower.

Intimidated the" gutless wonder"? 

How? I heard nothing of an arranged suicide for him/her.

You cannot have one branch of government, represented by the members of the US congress stipulating "the way it is to be."

No legal council of POTUS was permitted in the initial  hearings of Schiffs.

No questions were permitted to be asked by the republicans of the witnesses in those initial hearings.

POTUS was denied being allowed to be present for all the hearings.

So what was Schiff and company going to do with any docs? Other then to phrase their own questions to
their own witnesses in such a way as to get the answers they wanted and not a chance for anyone onthe right side to counter with any questions unless Schiff permitted it ... and he did not in the closed door sessions and mostly forbid it in the televised ones.

POTUS did nothing wrong.... but the spin masters have trumped up a bogus charge

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #42 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 13:25:46 »
i am open to that. But the transcript of Trumps conversation with Zelenski makes it looks to my like he did do something illegal. If we had witnesses from the Executive Dept who would rebut or reinterpret the story I think I see told by the transcript, instead of seeming to confirm it, then I would change my view. All I have seen from the White House and Republicans so far is name calling, yammering about the rules, cries of second hand information when witnesses with first hand information are ordered to not testify, cries of prejudice, trying to expose and making veiled threats to the whistleblower, when it is their duty to protect him or her.

Norton, here's a little advice for you - Never testify in court unless you absolutely have to - especially when you know the judge and prosecutors are biased and are playing dirty. The often used narrative of "If you're innocent and have nothing to hide, you'll gladly welcome investigations and court trials!" is pretty stupid.


Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #43 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 15:53:14 »
 Norton, would Obama withholding appropriated aid from Ukraine for 8 years while Russia waltz into Crimea be illegal? The funds Obama had withheld were appropriated and waiting to be released to Ukraine so they could defend themselves against the Russian hordes? Or was Quid pro Joe’s offer to the Ukranean investigator of his spirit on legal or prudent? Biden was the VP of the US offering a clear quid pro quo to the Ukraneans if they fired the investigator in investigating his son. Biden even brags on tape that well Son of bitch, they got their Billion dollars. This is classic corruption. Along with the fake Russian dossier in 2016, which was clear Russian collusion by Hillary’s campaign. You HAVE TO see this or you have missed the whole thing as Pelosi et al have.
« Last Edit: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 09:56:06 by Jaime »

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #44 on: Sat Dec 21, 2019 - 23:34:35 »
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #45 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 06:29:30 »
He has been obcessed with the shennanigans in the 2016 election. Especially since the Left hashtag been wholly consummed with it and can’t accept the result of the election.

And just how do you think Ukraine could defend itself against Russian aggression with non-llethal aid. Office supplies and laptops would not stop Russia’s aggression.No it was the big stuff that Obama withheld. Part of his Russian Reset. The flexibility he whispered to Medveyev inadvertantly on the open Mike. Also whatever spying was done on Trump’s campaign was done with the knowledge and approval of Obama. A historical scandal that is being ignored. THAT is the impeachable offense though unfortunately too late like Joe Biden’s blatant quid pro quo with the Ukranians. This whole impeachment thing is a three year long hissy fit by the Left because they hate him and will not accept the result of the election. Exactly what they accused him of not being being willing to in the campaign. They are experts at projecting what they indeed are guilty of onto Trump. It’s mind boggling if one has an open mind. This is why Hillary was so aghast at getting defeated. She had the thing RIGGED and she still lost.
« Last Edit: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 07:18:16 by Jaime »

Offline 4WD

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10890
  • Manna: 306
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #46 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 07:51:08 »
And we should not believe for a minute that the three year long hissy fit by the dems will stop even if the Senate tries him and judges his not guilty.  In fact all indications are that if the Senage exonerates him they will simply come up with more BS as a hindrance to his efforts.

The left, as a group, is really a disgusting lot.  They call themselves socialists, but they are really communist wannabees.  A socialist is actually a communist who doesn't have the power to take by force what they want from the rest of us  ----  YET.

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7190
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #47 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 08:09:35 »
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.

First of all, You did read what was said to Zelinsky, did you not?

The attached link is from CNN. Not a right wing biased source.

It is only 6 pages long.

 The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the·
:whole situation .. I think you're _surrounding yourself with some
of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you to get to the
bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an
incompetent performance-, but they. say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you. do it
if that's possible.  ( He says Whatever you can do "IF")

 The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor
who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people
involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney
General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad
news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad
news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing,
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.
Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you ·can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

You can see what Zelinsky replied to these by hitting the link

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

NOW... compare what they were screaming about against Trump and this phone call to what Joe Biden actually said...at...

The bragging happened at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018. The former vice president was on a stage with CFR’s president, Richard Haass. The video of it is on Youtube.com. Mr. Biden is talking one of his visits to Kiev.

“I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee,” Mr. Biden said.

“I had gotten,” he added, “a commitment from [President] Poroshenko and from [Prime Minister] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn’t. So they said they had — they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, ‘you have no authority. You’re not the president.’”

“The president said — I said, call him,” Mr. Biden replied, evoking, the CFR transcript notes, laughter.

“I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.’ I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in,’ I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. [Laughter.] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

The entire link is an interesting read:
https://www.nysun.com/editorials/well-son-of-a-bitch-ukraine-scandal-is-about-biden/90846/

This was the Vice President of the United Sates....

AND if the left has anything to say about it he WILL be president in the next election.

Compare the businessman, who wrote "The Art of the Deal" and has put this country to heights it never has been, with his business tactics

to the strong arm tactics of the likes of Biden, which was bribery.

They got to get rid of Trump before he does ANY MORE GOOD for us.

They know that they will never be able to maintain what he has done. Never so they want no more.Period.

I might add that if you have not, as yet, read Jonathan Cahn's, " Paradigm"... you truly should


Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #48 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 08:36:50 »
I agree Rella. The Paradigm gives extraordinary imsight as to what’s going on today as well as the Obama years.

As I said before, the media has missed the greatest scandal in American history, to foist this scam on the public.

Durham will get to the bottom of it and I am going to laugh my butt off. His purview is much broader than Mueller’s and the IG.
« Last Edit: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 08:41:33 by Jaime »

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #49 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 09:58:03 »
And we should not believe for a minute that the three year long hissy fit by the dems will stop even if the Senate tries him and judges his not guilty.  In fact all indications are that if the Senage exonerates him they will simply come up with more BS as a hindrance to his efforts.

The left, as a group, is really a disgusting lot.  They call themselves socialists, but they are really communist wannabees.  A socialist is actually a communist who doesn't have the power to take by force what they want from the rest of us  ----  YET.

+1

Yes, they've already stated they plan on keeping him in a perpetual state of impeachment.

The U.S. is split. One group wants liberty and opportunity. The other wants a daddy state, where daddy takes care of every need and makes everything fair and everyone equal. This may sound weird, but I don't understand men who want a daddy state. It's the antithesis of the strong male archetype. Instead of "Stand aside, let me provide for own and others" - it's "Daddy, take care of me, and THAT'S NOT FAIR, DADDY!!!" I realize that sounds a bit harsh, but there's nothing manly about grown men wanting daddy government to care for their every need, IMO.

While I'm at it -
It's not very manly for a grown man to be pro-choice.

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7190
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #50 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 10:07:20 »
+1

Yes, they've already stated they plan on keeping him in a perpetual state of impeachment.

The U.S. is split. One group wants liberty and opportunity. The other wants a daddy state, where daddy takes care of every need and makes everything fair and everyone equal. This may sound weird, but I don't understand men who want a daddy state. It's the antithesis of the strong male archetype. Instead of "Stand aside, let me provide for own and others" - it's "Daddy, take care of me, and THAT'S NOT FAIR, DADDY!!!" I realize that sounds a bit harsh, but there's nothing manly about grown men wanting daddy government to care for their every need, IMO.

While I'm at it -
It's not very manly for a grown man to be pro-choice.

The more demasculation that takes place with what the women have "accomplished" the more the men will want their daddy to protect them.

Proof being all those 35 year old males, college grads, living in their parents basement.

That is why POTUS is such a breath of fresh air.


Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #51 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 10:08:32 »
Jaime
It is my understanding that Congress authorized" lethal aid" and "non-lethal" military aid to Ukraine to defend against Russia. Obama withheld "lethal aid" because some other European countries were concerned about  military conflict spreading to their countries. And yes, the US sent military vehicles, surveillance, and communication equipment, not just blankets. If he really withheld lethal aid to wrangle some personal favor from Ukraine, he should have been charged and convicted. Maybe he did but wasn't caught.

The situation with Joe Biden and his son doesn't completely pass the smell test. The mainstream journalist say our European partners in aiding Ukraine were calling for the prosecutor to be fired for inaction before Biden got him fired. I don't know if that is right or not. There probably would not have been as much kickback if Pres Trump had asked Zelenski to help the FBI investigate the Bidens since they are US citizens. The most troubling part about about this whole situation is that, I believe it was Sondland who testified, Trump did not care as much about an investigation as he did an announcement by Zelenski,  of an investigation of the Bidens. And the asking of Zelenski to find the DNC server, that supposedly had been spirited away by Crowdstrike and hidden in Ukraine, tells me that Trump was not interested so much in fighting corruption as he was lending some credence to an off the wall political narrative.

All this mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture is just that - mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture.
If I could read minds as well as you, Sondland, and everyone else who claims to know what Trump was thinking, I'd become a gypsy psychic and make a fortune.


Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #52 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 20:31:56 »
All this mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture is just that - mind-reading, supposition, and conjecture.
If I could read minds as well as you, Sondland, and everyone else who claims to know what Trump was thinking, I'd become a gypsy psychic and make a fortune.


Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about. For example, Was the the cause of the violent death wanton first degree murder, manslaughter, or an accident.
?



Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #53 on: Sun Dec 22, 2019 - 22:00:20 »
Yes that’s why we are so ancious for Obama’s administration to get investigated. The media is not doing their job. Typically before journalism died, an investigative journalist like Sam Donaldson used to be every politician on both side’s worst nightmare. We need that level of curiousity again. An honest media IS what makes a free society work.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 04:23:44 by Jaime »

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #54 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 00:00:21 »
Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about. For example, Was the the cause of the violent death wanton first degree murder, manslaughter, or an accident.
?

Nice try, but no cigar, Norton.

"Mind reading" doesn't determine the charge in a murder case. Evidence or lack of evidence determines the charge. smh

A charge of first degree murder sticks when evidence shows the murder was planned ahead of time.
Example: Perp leaves evidence trail of buying bomb making supplies and Internet searches of how to blow up a building full of people, then proceeds to do so. Evidence proves the murder was planned ahead of time -  not a prosecutor or jury reading the perp's mind.

A second degree murder conviction occurs when there is a lack of evidence that shows pre-planning.

Another thing - supposition is not allowed in court. Haven't you watched enough Perry Mason in your lifetime to know supposition and conjecture is not allowed in determining guilt or innocence? Again, it's evidence or lack of evidence that determines these charges - not mind reading.



Please try harder, Norton.






Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #55 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 08:15:28 »
That’s right Mommydi. And since the Dems have little evidence, they DID resort to mind reading. Total miscarriage of justice. While letting REAL CRIMES In the Obama administration go. Obama’s administration absolutely did spy on an opposition candidate in 2016, Donald Trump’s campaign. The foreign collusion was with the phony dossier. Not to mention seeding the administrative ranks of government with traitors like Lisa Page, Peter Stzrok, Bob Mueller, Clapper and many others. This subterfuge is WAY worse than a phone call with the Ukranian president, of which we have a transcript.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 09:45:06 by Jaime »

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #56 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 10:39:25 »
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Of course you guys are not old enough to remember that when it was happening.  ::smile:: But that is what we are trying to determine with this impeachment thing. We have records of some of the President's words and actions surrounding some of this. What was his motive in holding up the Ukraine aid and when he asked Zelenski to investigate the Bidens and find the Crowdstrike server ? Without more evidence it can't be determined with satisfactory certainty. With what I have to go on, it looks like his motives were bad. And when he blocks evidence. even if the blocking is legal, it looks worse. If the Senate clears the President along party lines, I accept it. The Senate is under no legal obligation to provide more evidence one way or the other, or to say why they think the President is innocent.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #57 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 10:54:40 »
Why isn‘t what Biden admitted to doing with HIS Ukrainian quid pro quo not worthy the same scrutiny? His crooked son benefitted from what Joe was doing, in having the Ukrainian investigator investigating his son fired. To me this seems FAR worse than what Trump is accused of and what we have a transcript nullifying any whistle blower. No way can Biden’s clear corruption not be at least as bad as Trump’s accusations.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 17:53:06 by Jaime »

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7190
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #58 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 11:39:28 »
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?" Of course you guys are not old enough to remember that when it was happening.  ::smile:: But that is what we are trying to determine with this impeachment thing. We have records of some of the President's words and actions surrounding some of this. What was his motive in holding up the Ukraine aid and when he asked Zelenski to investigate the Bidens and find the Crowdstrike server ? Without more evidence it can't be determined with satisfactory certainty. With what I have to go on, it looks like his motives were bad. And when he blocks evidence. even if the blocking is legal, it looks worse. If the Senate clears the President along party lines, I accept it. The Senate is under no legal obligation to provide more evidence one way or the other, or to say why they think the President is innocent.

Before you say another word you need to explain what you think is meant my what was said.

And then give us the definition of is.

Assuming your first language is Englishor American English TELL US WHAT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS
in red is............



 The· President: I would like you to do us a favor though
because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a
lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with
this whole situation with Ukraine
, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess
you have one of your weal thy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the·
:whole situation .. I think you're _surrounding yourself with some
of the same people. I
would like to have the Attorney General
call you or your people and I would like you to get to the
bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended
with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an
incompetent performance-, but they. say a lot of it started with
Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you. do it
if that's possible.
  ( He says Whatever you can do "IF")

 The President: Good because I· heard you had a prosecutor
who· was very·good and he was shut down and that's really unfair.
A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your
very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people
involved
. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the_
mayor bf New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to
call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney
General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very
capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The
former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad
news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad
news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing,
There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so
whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if
you ·can look into it
... It sounds horrible to me.

What is wrong with this.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #59 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 11:55:21 »
Rella, we all know it is not what was said that causes this heartburn, it is what they believe he meant. Not nearly as clearcut as what Biden said in his very public recording of HIS quid pro quo, as the then BO of the US, which in my opinion is MUCH worse than the implications of Trump’s phone transcript. One HAS to suppose motive over and above the actual words in Trump’s phone call. Biden was breagging and laughing about his successful threat against his son’s Ukrainian investigator. Massive problems! Of course with Trump being a huge prolife advocate, the forces that be cannot abide him and his prolife policies and judicial appointments. There is always more to the story, especially during this time of year when pro abortion family members are visiting. The most pro life President in my lifetime cannot have a moments peace from the Molech sect.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 12:37:26 by Jaime »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #60 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 12:50:37 »
Also, if being an opposition candidate excluded Biden from being investigated, why wasn’t Trump afforded the same status when Obama spied on him as an opposition candidate? I realize it is the party differences that I don’t expect anyone to admit.

Online Rella

  • ..
  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7190
  • Manna: 657
  • Definitely 10. But we did win. Never forget
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #61 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 17:10:42 »
Rella, we all know it is not what was said that causes this heartburn, it is what they believe he meant. Not nearly as clearcut as what Biden said in his very public recording of HIS quid pro quo, as the then BO of the US, which in my opinion is MUCH worse than the implications of Trump’s phone transcript. One HAS to suppose motive over and above the actual words in Trump’s phone call. Biden was breagging and laughing about his successful threat against his son’s Ukrainian investigator. Massive problems! Of course with Trump being a huge prolife advocate, the forces that be cannot abide him and his prolife policies and judicial appointments. There is always more to the story, especially during this time of year when pro abortion family members are visiting. The most pro life President in my lifetime cannot have a moments peace from the Molech sect.

No... in this case it is what Norton understands as he reads this.

Then we can get to the crux of why the left cannot understand

Which will not happen cause it is pure hatred on their part.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #62 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 17:29:46 »
Yes it IS pure hatred. The sad thing is that all of this will sully the impeachment process for generations if not for ever.

Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #63 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 18:23:22 »
Rella
...I will say we do a lot for Ukraine. We spent a lot of effort and a lot of time. [ There is 391 million the US is about to give Ukraine, but for some unknown reason it is being held up ] ...I wouldn't say that it is reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very good to Ukraine... I would like for you to do us a favor though...

If my bank had approved a loan that I needed very badly, but the disbursement of the funds was being held up for some unexplained reason, and then if the Bank President called and said words similar to the above, asking for a favor that would personally benefit him, I would think the Bank Pres was a crook.

Something else about the transcript: Zelenski agreed with almost everything Trump said except that the prosecutor Biden got fired was a "very good" prosecutor. Zelenski said he would appoint a "very good" prosecutor who was approved by the parliament.

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #64 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 18:36:41 »
Of course he was a very good prosecutor, that is why Biden took the quid pro quo measures he did, Biden wouldn’t want a good investigator investigating his son. Crooks usually don’t want excellent people investigating them. Doesn’t the spectre at least smell weird to you as to Biden? It sure does to me.

Again, I must ask you, if Biden was declared immune to investigation by being an opposition political candidate, why wasn’t Trump afforded the same courtesy as Obama’s administration and FBI higher ups scammed to cheat him out of the election. Why? Because incompetent Hillary thiught she could only be defeated by cheaters. She KNOWs because she cheated greatly herself and you can’t out screw a Clinton! Stay tuned, this is the biggest story in history.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 19:45:37 by Jaime »

Offline mommydi

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 9754
  • Manna: 719
  • Gender: Female
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #65 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 19:08:23 »
Determining motive by evidence and words is not reading someone's mind?  The oft repeated phrase during 
the Nixon investigation was "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

I see what you did there.
You first claim, "Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about."
Then I state  - no - it's about evidence. Without evidence, intent can't be established.
Then you sneakily add "evidence" to your mind reading narrative.

Asking, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" is just a question - not evidence. Wondering what is in someone's mind is one thing. Claiming to read minds is another. Convicting someone on little to no evidence just because you say you can read their minds is a road you don't want to go down.

I'm talking to my daughter about this. She's halfway through law school, and her current job entails knowing the law in government settings.

She says- "Lol, no, mind reading is impossible. It's all based on how much evidence is available (or obtainable) to prove the level of intent needed to satisfy first degree." IOW, evidence points to intent, but if there's little or no evidence, it doesn't prove intent. So your mind reading strategy for proving guilt is nonsense.




Offline Norton

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1597
  • Manna: 36
  • Gender: Male
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #66 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 20:11:28 »
I see what you did there.
You first claim, "Mind reading is often what trials and testimony often are about."
Then I state  - no - it's about evidence. Without evidence, intent can't be established.
Then you sneakily add "evidence" to your mind reading narrative.

Asking, "What did the president know and when did he know it?" is just a question - not evidence. Wondering what is in someone's mind is one thing. Claiming to read minds is another. Convicting someone on little to no evidence just because you say you can read their minds is a road you don't want to go down.
I'm talking to my daughter about this. She's halfway through law school, and her current job entails knowing the law in government settings.

She says- "Lol, no, mind reading is impossible. It's all based on how much evidence is available (or obtainable) to prove the level of intent needed to satisfy first degree." IOW, evidence points to intent, but if there's little or no evidence, it doesn't prove intent. So your mind reading strategy for proving guilt is nonsense.
Your daughter is right. Of course we need evidence to determine motive and intent. Motive and intent is what an accused was thinking before, during or after the alleged crime was committed. The evidence can be forensics, records, or testimony from witnesses. Come on now. You understood I was not saying investigations and trials are conducted using telepathy, didn't you.
« Last Edit: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 20:35:58 by Norton »

Online Jaime

  • (Pronounced Hi-Me, not Ja-Me)
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 36177
  • Manna: 783
  • Gender: Male
  • I AM A DEPLORABLE
Re: And Nancy just said this
« Reply #67 on: Mon Dec 23, 2019 - 21:20:55 »
Norton, I am serious as a heart attack. There is shennanigans far more serious than what you think Trump did. My problem with Pelosi et al was their patent unfairness in the process. You HAVE to instinctively know this. The Dems have no room to demand any fairness after the sham they pulled in the house.
« Last Edit: Tue Dec 24, 2019 - 05:53:51 by Jaime »

 

     
anything