The noose just got tighter

Hello Darth,



How can you call an investigation bogus after it turned up so much wrongdoing and resulted in so many convictions? You're just parroting what the President said. He's a liar. It's not bogus just because Trump called it that. His words are meaningless. Haven't you figured that out yet? Or has he released his taxes.................. (among so many other lies)...........

Yours is the side that has things all wrong.

Just so ya know.

It WAS a bogus investigation.

Let’s say we go back and investigate Obama for tax evasion. Nothing about tax evasion comes up but some of his cronies get busted for *crimes unrelated* to Obama’s alleged tax evasion.

That’s your BOGUS Trump/Russian investigation in a nutshell.
 
Hello StoneByStone,



The problem is the person he tried to bribe is not going to testify, and his (not sworn, but politically calculated) statements suggest there was no bribery at all. He has made it clear he cannot become involved in American politics.

Yeah, but we all know he's obviously lying. So even if he did testify and admitted he was being strong-armed, the Republicans would still deny it.
 
EXACTLY. In a court of law......you must prove guilt, its not the accused that must prove innocence. There is never a crime until a crime has been proven to have taken place....until such time its an accusation void of evidence.

I'm not talking about a court of law, I'm talking about reality. We both know Trump attempted bribery. Whether or not the Democrats tried to impeach him for it doesn't change reality.
Whether Trump should be put in jail for this is a different issue.
 
Yeah, but we all know he's obviously lying. So even if he did testify and admitted he was being strong-armed, the Republicans would still deny it.

So, Zelensky is a liar after all lol.

Btw, Zelensky ‘got involved’ in our politics the moment he made the statement that he felt no pressure. A statement he felt compelled to reiterate.

If Zelensky wanted to stay out of our politics AND implicate Trump his comment would be ‘no comment’. That’s the way to handle that.
 
Hello Darth,

The happy face spin on the Quid Pro Joe clip has Biden *lying-boasting* about extorting the Ukrainians lol.

The other side of the coin has him doing what Democrats are accusing Trump of. Democrats would never accuse Trump of doing what they have actually done, what they?

It's not extortion if it is official US State Department policy, and in coordination with the EU. Give it up. You're chasing nonsense. Your claim has been debunked. It's total propaganda.
 
So, Zelensky is a liar after all lol.

Btw, Zelensky ‘got involved’ in our politics the moment he made the statement that he felt no pressure. A statement he felt compelled to reiterate.

If Zelensky wanted to stay out of our politics AND implicate Trump his comment would be ‘no comment’. That’s the way to handle that.

He was asked this right next to Trump and he still needed America's help. He had no choice but to lie. If he said "no comment" that would be as good as saying "yes, but I'm scared to admit it."
 
Hello Micawber,

Defense officials warn of addition attacks from Iran that would warrant 'severe response'


In the face of warnings from the Pentagon that the hold on military aid to Ukraine could be illegal, an official from the Office of Management and Budget made it clear that the order to keep the freeze in place came directly from President Donald Trump, according to unredacted documents reviewed by Just Security.

The documents, including emails from officials at the Department of Defense and the Office of Management and Budget that were released under court order last month but were either partially or completely blacked out, offer new details about tensions between the two agencies tasked with carrying out Trump's unexplained hold on aid to Ukraine.

They also raise serious questions about why the newly revealed contents were redacted by the Trump administration in the first place amid congressional oversight efforts and court orders in Freedom of Information Act litigation.

'Clear direction from POTUS'


Among the documents viewed by Just Security, a website focusing on reporting and analysis of national security law and policy, was an August 30 email from Michael Duffey, associate director of national security programs at OMB to Elaine McCusker, the acting Pentagon comptroller, stating the freeze on aid to Ukraine would continue at the explicit direction of the President despite growing legal concerns within the Pentagon and mounting external questions prompted by news of the hold becoming public just days prior.
"Clear direction from POTUS to continue to hold," Duffey wrote in that email, which has only been made available in redacted form until now and was not handed over to House investigators conducting the impeachment inquiry into the President, according to Just Security.
The August 30 email was sent on the same day Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Trump to discuss the hold, which had already been in place for roughly two months.


Additional emails viewed by Just Security show that McCusker first raised concerns about the legality of the hold on July 25, the same day as Trump's now infamous call with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in which Trump pressed Zelensky for investigations that could boost him politically.
The Defense Department issued additional warnings to OMB and the White House about the legality of the hold as it stretched into August. Specifically, Pentagon officials made clear they were becoming increasingly concerned about DoD's ability to spend the Ukraine funding by the legally mandated September 30 deadline.
If the money was not spent by the deadline, it would be returned to the Treasury Department in what is known as "impoundment."
"We were always concerned about the ramifications of holding the military assistance to Ukraine," a Defense Department official told CNN.
"This is due to the fact it was appropriated by Congress and had been notified to Congress already prior to the hold being placed and the need to obligate the money by the end of the fiscal year, something the hold had prevented. These concerns were 'raised multiple times with OMB' via multiple channels," they added.
The documents also highlight McCusker's concerns that OMB was not representing the Pentagon's concerns accurately.
"Recognizing the importance of decision space, but this situation is really unworkable made particularly difficult because OMB lawyers continue to consistently mischaracterize the process — and the information we have provided. They keep repeating that this pause will not impact DOD's ability to execute on time," McCusker wrote
to Secretary of Defense Mark Esper's chief of staff on August 27 in response to an inquiry about the hold from a defense contractor.

Blame game

In a September 9 email to McCusker, Duffey suggested that the Pentagon, not OMB, would be to blame if the money was not spent.
"If you are unable to obligate the funds, it will have been DoD's decision that cause any impoundment of funds," he wrote.
McCusker responded: "You can't be serious. I am speechless."
A second official, who spoke to CNN under the condition of anonymity due to their not being authorized to speak publicly on the matter, said the Pentagon made it clear to OMB that it was not going to be held legally liable for or suffer the consequences of the hold and the ignoring of the concerns of the Defense Department.
The official said that DoD told OMB it should take responsibility.

Pentagon officials were concerned at OMB's apparent apathy surrounding their legal concerns and a lack of understanding of the legal constraints that the Defense Department was under with regard to the aid, the official said, adding that they believe OMB's apathy stemmed from the fact that they had guidance from the President to execute the hold.
However, a OMB spokesperson downplayed the idea that there was any conflict between the two agencies.
"There was agreement every step of the way between DOD and OMB lawyers, who were responsible for working out the details of the hold, in line with the President's priorities," the told CNN.
A senior administration official said OMB officials believed that McCusker was exaggerating the numbers about the money that the Pentagon would be unable to spend if the hold wasn't lifted.
According to Just Security, McCusker sent an email to OMB officials on Aug. 9 and said: "As we discussed, as of 12 AUG I don't think we can agree that the pause 'will not preclude timely execution.' We hope it won't and will do all we can to execute once the policy decision is made, but can no longer make that declarative statement."
The senior administration official insisted that OMB officials believed she was overstating concerns about how much money might be left unspent. This official claimed there were other top Defense Department officials who disagreed with McCusker's conclusions.
Ultimately $35 million in Ukraine assistance did not make it out the door by the end of the fiscal year, however, Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that ensured the remainder of the money could be spent.

'Evidence is not evidence.'

(Just imagining how Trump fans will treat this)
 
Hello Darth,

WTF do you call the Dossier and bogus investigations lol?!

If Biden didn’t want to be investigated he shouldn’t have allowed a clear conflict of interest to exist in Ukraine while he was VP—and appointed to ‘look after’ Ukraine.

As it was, no investigation occurred, Ukraine got their lethal weapons and no meddling occurred.

Why are we doing this again?

Whataboutism.

This has nothing to do with what Biden did.
 
He was asked this right next to Trump and he still needed America's help. He had no choice but to lie. If he said "no comment" that would be as good as saying "yes, but I'm scared to admit it."

Zelensky is a liar and a coward now lol.

How’s that hole coming down there?
 
I'm not talking about a court of law, I'm talking about reality. We both know Trump attempted bribery. Whether or not the Democrats tried to impeach him for it doesn't change reality.
Whether Trump should be put in jail for this is a different issue.

You know no such thing.

Learn the difference between speculation and knowing.
 
Hello Darth,

It WAS a bogus investigation.

Let’s say we go back and investigate Obama for tax evasion. Nothing about tax evasion comes up but some of his cronies get busted for *crimes unrelated* to Obama’s alleged tax evasion.

That’s your BOGUS Trump/Russian investigation in a nutshell.

You're only calling it bogus because Trump dictated that is what it should be called.

Meaningless repetition does not change the facts.

Multiple convictions. People Trump hand picked. Ten instances of probable obstruction. And we're not done yet. McGahn hasn't testified.

As a matter of fact, there are lots of people we'd like to hear from. People close to Trump. Let's get all the facts out there in the open for all to see.
 
Hello Darth,

To invoke ‘whataboutism’ is to tacitly concede that the Dossier was a fabrication intended to affect an election.

You aware of that?

Nice slither job. I'm getting dizzy from the spin...


Only problem is the truth is something you left behind when you decided to back Trump.
 
Hello Darth,



Nice slither job. I'm getting dizzy from the spin...


Only problem is the truth is something you left behind when you decided to back Trump.

You’re evading the point lol.

Whataboutism amounts to ‘just because my side did something wrong doesn’t make it right when your side does it’.

It’s arguably the lamest debate tactic to come down the pike in a generation but that’s beside the point. When you invoked whataboutism when the Dossier was brought up that means you accept that the Dossier was, in fact, a collection of gossip/propaganda collected from foreigners intended to sway an election and/or disrupt our politics.

And boy, did it ever.

THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING DEMOCRATS ARE ACCUSING TRUMP OF. Except Trump’s *alleged* attempt was amateurish by comparison; nothing happened as a result; he got ZERO political benefit from it etc.

This is a BIG reason Democrats are struggling to get voters other than ‘the already convinced’ on board with their impeachment effort. Democrats are basically asking to voters to ignore/forget two separate things: one is, they, Democrats, are guilty, in spades, of election meddling and that was made even more clear with the Horowitz report.

Secondly, the Ukraine Silly Burger followed bloody immediately on the heels of their failed impeachment effort that began, in very large part, thanks to Hillary/DNC using a foreign cutout to collect dirt on Trump...from...wait for it...Russians!!!

You couldn’t write a spy novel that way. It’s too silly to believe and people would put it down. That’s exactly how absurd things have become.

Trump may suck—blah, blah, blah but that way in no way negates the fact that Democrats are accusing Trump of what they themselves are guilty of. And too many people see it for what it is because you have to literally be blind not to see it.

And once you see it, there’s no ‘unseeing’ it.
 
If the same scenario was happening with Obama, would these same Democrats be calling for his impeachment?

Oh, hell no.
 
Back
Top