- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:20 pm to rbWarEagle
Your star witness says it is accurate.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:23 pm to bamarep
quote:
WTF does that have to do with anything?
We have to impeach the president first, then we can find out wut he did wrong. - Pelosi probably.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:23 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Thanks. But it wasn’t.
Really? What is it that you think was missing?
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:24 pm to bmy
quote:
So you believe that Republicans would vote to remove Trump if a smoking gun of sorts emerged Re: Ukraikegate
Ukraine isn't the hill to die on. The President sets foreign policy and is in charge of the justice system in our country. He could threaten to withhold funds and have Ukraine investigate whatever he wants. Those are all actions that fall under Trumps authority as president.
An example of what would make this illegal is if Trump told Ukraine to personally provide him with land for free in Ukraine so that he could build a Trump hotel on it before he released any government funds.
The liberals perception that Trump is doing this to "Tamper with the 2020 elections" is unfounded and falls into the realm of speculation.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:25 pm to bmy
quote:
So you believe that Republicans would vote to remove Trump if a smoking gun of sorts emerged Re: Ukraikegate
I think you have 10 or so Senators that will vote no regardless, and I think you have 25 or so that will vote yes regardless. I think the rest are swayable given ample evidence.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:26 pm to SidewalkDawg
quote:
An example
You mean like "fire your prosecutor that's investigating my son or you don't get the money. And you have 6 hours to do it.
An example like that?
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:27 pm to bamarep
quote:
An example like that?
I wasn't trying to be so overt, but yes.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:28 pm to SidewalkDawg
Baw you know how these progs around here are. You have to beat them over the fricking head with the truth.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:28 pm to bamarep
That's the definition of a kangaroo court. The democrats can take their peach mint and stuff it.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:31 pm to Janky
Accurate =/= exact
The meaning/intent behind the conversation is a matter for discussion but the evidence is clear that it isn’t a word-for-word transcript.
quote:
Lt. Col. Alexander S. Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that the White House transcript of a July call between President Trump and Ukraine’s president omitted crucial words and phrases, and that his attempts to include them failed, according to three people familiar with the testimony.
The meaning/intent behind the conversation is a matter for discussion but the evidence is clear that it isn’t a word-for-word transcript.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:35 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Indeed, Vindman attested to the overall accuracy of the rough transcript, contrary to some impeachment supporters who have suggested the White House is hiding an exact transcript that would reveal everything Trump said to the Ukrainian president. As one of a half-dozen White House note-takers listening to the call, Vindman testified that he tried unsuccessfully to make a few edits to the rough transcript as it was being prepared. In particular, Vindman believed that Zelensky specifically said the word "Burisma," the corrupt Ukrainian energy company that hired Hunter Biden, when the rough transcript referred only to "the company." But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript, and he specifically said he did not believe any changes were made with ill intent.
"You don't think there was any malicious intent to specifically not add those edits?" asked Republican counsel Steve Castor.
"I don't think so."
"So otherwise, this record is complete and I think you used the term 'very accurate'?"
"Yes," said Vindman.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:35 pm to Janky
Uh huh. I read it. That's why I said "accurate =/= exact".
Some more bits from the same article:
Some more bits from the same article:
quote:
Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.) Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was really bothering him?
"I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views," Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for — "
"I understand that," Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason."
This post was edited on 11/12/19 at 3:37 pm
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:37 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
But beyond that, Vindman had no problems with the transcript
It doesn't have to be exact if your star witness has no problems with it. Clown.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:39 pm to Janky
I don't know if you have reading comprehension issues or you're just being deliberately obtuse so I'm just going to refrain from engaging with you any further.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:40 pm to rbWarEagle
quote:
Vindman said he was "concerned" about Trump's statements to Zelensky, so concerned that he reported it to top National Security Council lawyer John Eisenberg. (Vindman had also reported concerns to Eisenberg two weeks before the Trump-Zelensky call, after a Ukraine-related meeting that included Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.) Vindman said several times that he was not a lawyer and did not know if Trump's words amounted to a crime but that he felt they were "wrong." That was when Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe, a former U.S. attorney, tried to get to the root of Vindman's concerns. What was really bothering him?
"I'm trying to find out if you were reporting it because you thought there was something wrong with respect to policy or there was something wrong with respect to the law," Ratcliffe said to Vindman. "And what I understand you to say is that you weren't certain that there was anything improper with respect to the law, but you had concerns about U.S. policy. Is that a fair characterization?"
"So I would recharacterize it as I thought it was wrong and I was sharing those views," Vindman answered. "And I was deeply concerned about the implications for bilateral relations, U.S. national security interests, in that if this was exposed, it would be seen as a partisan play by Ukraine. It loses the bipartisan support. And then for — "
"I understand that," Ratcliffe said, "but that sounds like a policy reason, not a legal reason."
This only strengthens our argument. He had a problem with the policy. Well, tough shite. That isn't up to him.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 3:55 pm to bamarep
majority rules. you think it would be any different if your side was the majority.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 4:06 pm to Geauxst Writer
quote:
I am extremely informed on the whole process and contents
If you have to use the qualifier "extremely" to describe your credibility, chances are you don't know what you are talking about.
quote:
The summary is Trump activated Rudy and many departments of government to withhold $400 m of approved aid to Ukraine unless they publicly stated and started a new investigation the Biden’s. This is fact
Never mind. You can just say dumb shite like that and ruin it.
If you could point to me, in the transcript, where this is corroborated, that would be super. Note I said corroborated, not implied or opined.
Then, if you would, please refer me to the words of the Ukrainian President on the matter. Specifically in regards to whether or not he felt pressured to investigate Biden (Jr.). You won't find that.
Once you have done that, please peruse the large volume of testimony corroborating the President's statement on withholding Ukrainian aid on the basis of widespread Ukrainian corruption.
Now you can link the evidence to your statement. Not speculations. Not opinions.
This post was edited on 11/12/19 at 4:09 pm
Posted on 11/12/19 at 4:07 pm to 56lsu
quote:
majority rules. you think it would be any different if your side was the majority.
Yeah, the democrats should go as hard here as the republicans did against Obama.
Posted on 11/12/19 at 4:07 pm to 56lsu
We're not a democracy you fricking idiot. I'd explain it but you're too fricking stupid to know the difference.
Get your dumbass back on your knees under Obama's desk.
Idiot
Get your dumbass back on your knees under Obama's desk.
Idiot
Page 3 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News