- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
1
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:18 pm to CelticDog
quote:
Taylor said oh theres no quid pro quo and then gave example of it being precisely quid pro quo.
And?
quote:
Taylor said oh theres no quid pro quo and then gave example of it being precisely quid pro quo.
You made that up in your head because thats what you want...or thats what Maddow et.al. want you to want.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:19 pm to DeathAndTaxes
If he grabbed HRC by the pussy
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:19 pm to DeathAndTaxes
He had sex with Hillary 
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:19 pm to davyjones
I agree wholeheartedly with you, that nothing should be called an impeachment hearing until articles of impeachment have actually been filed.
I do think that if a complaint is filed suggesting that the President pressured a foreign leader into investigating corruption because he wanted that information to hurt someone who poses a threat to his presidency, that should be investigated.
Regarding hearsay and presumptions, if the only thing that would suffice here is the president using the words “quid pro quo”, then obviously there is no point.
Thank you though for taking the time to define your position.
I do think that if a complaint is filed suggesting that the President pressured a foreign leader into investigating corruption because he wanted that information to hurt someone who poses a threat to his presidency, that should be investigated.
Regarding hearsay and presumptions, if the only thing that would suffice here is the president using the words “quid pro quo”, then obviously there is no point.
Thank you though for taking the time to define your position.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:23 pm to PhDoogan
What are you even talking about? Presumption of innocence doesn’t protect you from investigation.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:23 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
The same way that any other law enforcement official does?
Or by not inquiring about it directly?
In this situation....? Trump is the highest law enforcement executive in the land. The claim that the subject of the law enforcement investigation is competing directly for his job.
There is no precedent for this.
So in this situation the President of our country either has two choices:
1) Turn a blind eye to an old crook politician who abused his office to enrich himself of his family (i.e. actual corruption abuse of power); or
2) Investigate actual crime and get impeached....
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:23 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
fense? by DeathAndTaxes
Would it be the bragging about it that would make it impeachable, or the threatening to withhold US aid money to get something he wanted?
I believe the American people have every right to know the origins of the sham SC Trump/Russia collusion BS....Ukraine was ground zero. Sorry Slow Joe and his baw were working a pay for play scam at the same time the DNC and Hilldawg were trying to dig up dirt on Trump....Biden’s are gonna be collateral damage just like Manafort and Flynn were collateral damage from the sham SC investigation.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:25 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
Presumption of innocence doesn’t protect you from investigation.
Tell that to the Dems that keep screaming Trump is using the DOJ to investigate "political opponents".
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:26 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Evidence of a crime. FCPA is enforced in the business world all the time, I am fairly certain Bidens druggie SIL nailing son would be in violation of the act.
USAID, politicians slush fund, slinging money everywhere as long as a % is kicked back...
USAID, politicians slush fund, slinging money everywhere as long as a % is kicked back...
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:27 pm to DeathAndTaxes
You gotta stop drinking the cool aid, DNT.
Impeachment can only be done by the House. Not a house committee created to oversee an agency of the executive created more than 200 years after the gaddam Constitution was ratified..
This whole process has been unconstitutional.
Impeachment can only be done by the House. Not a house committee created to oversee an agency of the executive created more than 200 years after the gaddam Constitution was ratified..
This whole process has been unconstitutional.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:27 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Not a damn thing from any lying stealing cheating socialist scum.
The founding fathers had a way for "We the People" to address tyranny in government. And we all know what that is.
The founding fathers had a way for "We the People" to address tyranny in government. And we all know what that is.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:29 pm to DeathAndTaxes
Nothing. Most of the sane citizens of this country understand what’s going on and what the Democrats are doing. They want power, they want socialism, they want to hold power forever and will do anything to accomplish this goal.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:32 pm to CelticDog
quote:
no he puts himself first.
You are ok with using military aid as a carrot and stick to get dirt on leading dem candidate in which quid pro quo was spelled out.
Leader was told to go on tv and say he would be looking into it else no aid.
Even you see the abuse.
Several posters in this thread admit that politics comes before country.
You are basing all this off the Taylor testimony which hasn’t been officially released and is purely here say.
1. There wasn’t Quid Pro. The aid was held up by the Pentagon and Ukraine at the time of the call didn’t even know it was held up.
2. Leader never went on TV and said those things before the aid was released. So if that was a prerequisite for funds that blows that argument up.
The facts of the matter just don’t add up. The entire investigation is tainted by Schiff anyway from his lying about talking to the whistleblower to sending staffers to Ukraine to speak with Taylor and other officials months ago.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:33 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
What would have to come out for you to say Trump had committed an impeachable offense?
If he was born in Kenya to Communist parents....actually born anywhere with Communist parents?
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:33 pm to KosmoCramer
quote:Using the elected office for personal or political gain is a high crime.
High crimes and misdemeanors.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:33 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
What are you even talking about? Presumption of innocence doesn’t protect you from investigation.
Serious question...
Are you an attorney?
Are you law enforcement?
There can be no more important aspect of due process than in the investigation.
The House of Representatives is not a gaddam intelligence agency as they have proven time and time again.
They cannot on the one hand invoke the power of the CIA which was delegated to the executive (and this aint even an intelligence matter anyway) and then selectively leak that which they deem favorable to their political positions.
This whole fricking thing is a sham. And is not constitutional.
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:34 pm to DeathAndTaxes
quote:
What would have to come out for you to say Trump had committed an impeachable offense?
At this point, the left is so dishonest and unethical, I would never believe any findings they present.
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 10/22/19 at 8:34 pm to PhDoogan
To the folks who bothered to respond with their actual positions, thank you.
Switching gears a bit, and again, please respond to the question, don’t get all excited about the implication:
Why involve your personal attorney?
If you feel 100% confident in the move, why not just straight up tell the Ukrainian government “I am withholding any more aid until you address these corruption issues?”
And if the investigations we already on going, why insist on a public announcement of them?
Switching gears a bit, and again, please respond to the question, don’t get all excited about the implication:
Why involve your personal attorney?
If you feel 100% confident in the move, why not just straight up tell the Ukrainian government “I am withholding any more aid until you address these corruption issues?”
And if the investigations we already on going, why insist on a public announcement of them?
This post was edited on 10/22/19 at 8:37 pm
Page 4 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News