I35
5,000+ Posts
They don’t like Trump because they had a good thing going.
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
They don’t like Trump because they had a good thing going.
I35
5,000+ Posts
What if it’s in the best interest of the US to stop Ukraine’s corruption and well known Americans that are getting favors in are part of the problem of the corruptions? Does Trump suppose to turn a blind eye to it? You can’t respond by saying there’s no evidence because your argument is to not even look into it to see, There’s a ton of evidence that says other wise.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Ukraine is of course corrupt. Their economy came out of Communism 28 years ago. No one had any money except for those high up in the Politburo. Those guys bought up all the industry they could and set up laws that made it virtually impossible to compete with them. Them and Russia run the very epitome of cronyism and government intervention of the market. The only way to get something done is to give a rich guy lots of money or give a son/daughter a high ranking job.
Ukraine is trying to reorient West, at least from West of the Dnieper River. To do that they did the only thing they know how to do. Bribe rich people from other countries with money or jobs in order to make deals in the West.
It is a sad state of affairs. They were close to getting into the EU, which for them would have been a huge step forward. At that point maybe their corrupt business culture gets rehabilitated over time. Not now.
Ukraine is trying to reorient West, at least from West of the Dnieper River. To do that they did the only thing they know how to do. Bribe rich people from other countries with money or jobs in order to make deals in the West.
It is a sad state of affairs. They were close to getting into the EU, which for them would have been a huge step forward. At that point maybe their corrupt business culture gets rehabilitated over time. Not now.
The whole draining the swamp play would sound better if Giuliani hadn't been over there looking out for their clients/backers. this isn't about ending corruption... it's just about making sure it's my people getting the loot, not friends of the previous administration. You think a president who puts cable company lobbyist in charge of the FCC, polluter lobbyists in charge of the EPA and a shill for for-profit education scammers in charge of the Department of Education is somehow incorruptible?
I35
5,000+ Posts
You are getting off track here. I don’t care who is investigating what when it’s obvious they are going after corruption. If a petty thief tackles a bank robber running out of a bank with a bag of money then he caught the bank robber. The petty thief with get his when he’s doing something wrong.
If you have some type of proof that Giuliani is trying to stop the Dems corruption so that he can get his hands on it then that will need to be address as well. But let’s not distraction by an assumption for something that is proven to be actually happening.
Besides a Republican would be crazy to try anything illegal due to the democrats watchdog MSM. Because they are accused of doing wrong when they aren’t by the fake news.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
This happens with every President. The problem is that in order to have enough expertise to run a regulatory agency correctly you have to worked within it at some time. Things will get worse if you put someone in charge who knows nothing. You will get chicken retailers thrown in jail for not following regulations that made no sense like back in the New Deal days.
That is the reason there is a theory of Regulatory Capture.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I would buy that if an action had taken place in one of the years prior to Joe Biden being considered the Dem most likely to challenge Trump successfully and if it weren't a fake interest. They only cared about an announcement on US TV. Seems like an odd way to address corruption, huh?
Yes I thought I was making that point.
Wrong Pres here Bubba.
Axl Rose must be really mad at Nunes now for pointing out that the Giuliani angle the Dems seem to think is improper was simply Trump's lawyer investigating the Russian hoax that Mueller was investigating. So, I'm not a lawyer, but is that an improper thing?
Uh oh, Dr. Hill referred to Vindman as "...with Colonel Vindman, with Mr. Vindman."
How well has that worked? Are you serious?
Ratcliffe got Holmes to say that after supposedly receiving word from Sondland that Zelensky would do whatever Trump wanted with respect to the investigation from the June 25 call, Trump respond with, "Good. What about Sweden?" That is his reaction to hearing that news.
Magically, of course, Holmes could not hear any of the rest of the conversation from trump's end.
Magically, of course, Holmes could not hear any of the rest of the conversation from trump's end.
No sane person can.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
So you guys have never adjusted your cell phone volume during a call?
As @Dionysus can attest, I have a big, fancy phone. In a quiet room, I may need to lower the volume very slightly. In any outdoor setting, ANY, such as a restaurant or cafe, I cannot fathom a time when the volume would be so loud as to overcome the surrounding noise that I would have to turn down the volume. Did Sondland testify he turned it down? Does Sondland strike anyone else here as being able to so subtly turn it down that Holmes would not know for sure that was what he had done?
Give me a freaking break.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I have three daughters. They often call my wife. My oldest is boisterous. I can hear her conversations as if they were on speaker. My other two are more meek. I can't hear them. I imagine that DJT would be loud. I mean, he's no spring chicken and could talk relatively more loud on a phone than in person as well. I think it rather telling that he said "good, now on to Sweden". He didn't care about the corruption, he cared about the announcement.
It looks to me like he demanded personal political favors in return for releasing Congressionally authorized funds. I'm surprised you find that arcane and hard to understand. That's what all the hearings are about. I guess the whole key now is whether Trump has enough plausible deniability so long as he keeps those with direct knowledge from testifying. As far as hurting people's feelings … if Trump has a superpower that's it. But being a jerk is not illegal so long as you do nothing illegal by being a jerk. Hey and it makes you popular with people who like offending liberals, do-gooders, the media and the self-righteously politically correct.
Last edited:
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
House asked to bring additional lunch for Nunes, Jordan, and Castor.
Fiona Hill ate theirs.
Fiona Hill ate theirs.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
I found it pretty disturbing that Holmes refused to take responsibility for his own indiscretion in sharing presidential communications with anyone who found it “interesting.”
Holmes attempted to obfuscate the direct question, which was telling, and when Schiff sensed he was in trouble, he jumped in to run out the questioner's limited time (as he has done several times already). What Schiff prevented from coming out is that not only did he relay the story to anyone who thought might be interested but also admitted in his depo testimony that he recounted the overheard phone conversation with his vacation “buddies.”
Homes should never work in public service again. He has poor judgment and cannot be trusted.
Holmes attempted to obfuscate the direct question, which was telling, and when Schiff sensed he was in trouble, he jumped in to run out the questioner's limited time (as he has done several times already). What Schiff prevented from coming out is that not only did he relay the story to anyone who thought might be interested but also admitted in his depo testimony that he recounted the overheard phone conversation with his vacation “buddies.”
Homes should never work in public service again. He has poor judgment and cannot be trusted.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Well, he shared it with his supervisor because it's telling and timely.
I35
5,000+ Posts
I haven’t got to see any of this today. But if the transcript came out immediately and there have been several that has stated that it is very accurate, then why are we to listen or believe someone that said they overheard Trumps conversation? If anything it’s proven and this person lied under oath.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Some stills from the hearings
I swear Trump got it right when he said the fake news is the enemy of the people. This is the garbage they are spreading every night on the air? Unbelievable!!!
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
