The Democrats are talking about impeaching Trump for attempting to get information from a Ukranian..

[Blackrook]

...politican to use against Joe Biden.

Didn't the Democrats hire a British spy to get information against Donald Trump?

I'm not sure right now why it's OK for the Democrats to use foreigners to dig dirt on Republicans but not the other way around.

Maybe some dumbass Democrat will explain it to me.

 

[JoeB131]

...politican to use against Joe Biden.

Didn't the Democrats hire a British spy to get information against Donald Trump?

I'm not sure right now why it's OK for the Democrats to use foreigners to dig dirt on Republicans but not the other way around.

Maybe some dumbass Democrat will explain it to me.

We could, but you still wouldn't understand it.

Democrats outside of government hired the same British people that Jeb Bush used to investigate Trump. They did not threaten the United Kingdom with withholding aid to get dirt on Trump.

So your comparison would hold up if Obama personally called David Cameron and threatened to withhold military assistance if they didn't get him dirt on Trump.

 

[occupied]

It's using the power of the office in an attempt to ruin a political opponent. It's a great big no-no in America. It is common in banana republics and dictatorships that are still having elections in an attempt to make the people think democracy still exists.

 

[longknife]

The call WAS NOT about Joe Biden. It was about his son using his father's position WHEN HE WAS VP long before Donald Trump even declared his run for the presidency.

A simple question about what the Ukraine was doing about the aleged wrongdoing. Well within the purvue of the president's position.

 

[iceberg]

Whistleblower 'DID NOT actually hear the Trump Ukraine call' | Daily Mail Online

so once again the person going FOUL didn't even hear the conversation and we are back to "well i heard an anonymous source say" OF WHICH has failed every single time the dems did it.

so god damn tired of manufactured rage.

 

[pyetro]

...politican to use against Joe Biden.

Didn't the Democrats hire a British spy to get information against Donald Trump?

I'm not sure right now why it's OK for the Democrats to use foreigners to dig dirt on Republicans but not the other way around.

Maybe some dumbass Democrat will explain it to me.

Your thread says nothing about military aid.
Slick.

 

[iceberg]

so from what i can tell from reading as many sources, mostly biased in one direction or the other - is that:

Biden *never* spoke to his son about his sons business.
EXCEPT ONE TIME - but even that is vague with "i hope you know what you are doing" and without context, meaningless unless you're bullet hunting.
while biden did threaten to withhold the billion dollars, he was more acting as the spokesperson for many who said "go do this". if you're to believe he did it for his son then you have to have everyone else in the US and other countries to go along with this and that simply isn't the case. if you choose to believe it is, then that's because you have an axe to grind.

trump did call the newly elected leader of the ukraine to congratulate him.
guiliani is a dumbass and says shit flopping around like a fish out of water, moreso than trump likes to do. no wonder they get along.
the "whistleblower" NEVER HEARD THE CALL. they found some anonymous source in the wild and ran with it. echos of dozens of other attempts by the left to hide their sources while they rampage around
trump may or may not release the transcript of the call. we will continue to hear that for the remainder of this week or longer. yay us.
now if you're to believe trump made a call to have biden investigated and we never go to foreign players to do this, go get mad at hillarys camps and the steele dossier. if not, shut up. "it's different when we do it" needs to die a painful death in a public square.
if you choose to believe trump did something wrong off yet another anonymous source, then that's because you have an axe to grind.

so to date, we're making all this ruckus over what would appear to be nothing at all.

simply because we've built a culture designed to LOOK for reasons to get mad and then we let loose with all the social media power we have to convince others OUR viewpoint is right and the other side is the spawn of satan.

because we all have a shitload of axes to grind now.

 

[CowboyTed]

...politican to use against Joe Biden.

Didn't the Democrats hire a British spy to get information against Donald Trump?

I'm not sure right now why it's OK for the Democrats to use foreigners to dig dirt on Republicans but not the other way around.

Maybe some dumbass Democrat will explain it to me.

So much is wrong here...but I will point that the Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS is a commercial research and strategic intelligence firm based in Washington, D.C. Who Jeb Bush campaign hired before... That is not against the law...

Explaining how wilfully ignorant the rest of your post is a waste of time.

Lets make it simple for you... If the Whistleblower's information stands up and the call transcript confirm... Trump broke the law and probably several laws...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Whistleblower 'DID NOT actually hear the Trump Ukraine call' | Daily Mail Online

so once again the person going FOUL didn't even hear the conversation and we are back to "well i heard an anonymous source say" OF WHICH has failed every single time the dems did it.

so god damn tired of manufactured rage.

Thank goodness we had Trump himself verify that he did indeed talk to the leader of the Ukraine about getting dirt on Biden.

 

[iceberg]

...politican to use against Joe Biden.

Didn't the Democrats hire a British spy to get information against Donald Trump?

I'm not sure right now why it's OK for the Democrats to use foreigners to dig dirt on Republicans but not the other way around.

Maybe some dumbass Democrat will explain it to me.

We could, but you still wouldn't understand it.

Democrats outside of government hired the same British people that Jeb Bush used to investigate Trump. They did not threaten the United Kingdom with withholding aid to get dirt on Trump.

So your comparison would hold up if Obama personally called David Cameron and threatened to withhold military assistance if they didn't get him dirt on Trump.

and there is ZERO EVIDENCE trump did that either. yet here we are accusing him off speculation so we can get rid of him for something he may or may not have done.

your hate blinds you to the methods you use.

 

[iceberg]

Whistleblower 'DID NOT actually hear the Trump Ukraine call' | Daily Mail Online

so once again the person going FOUL didn't even hear the conversation and we are back to "well i heard an anonymous source say" OF WHICH has failed every single time the dems did it.

so god damn tired of manufactured rage.

Thank goodness we had Trump himself verify that he did indeed talk to the leader of the Ukraine about getting dirt on Biden.

never said trump was out of the woods on this. like i said in my next post, he may or may not release the transcript / recording of the call and that will be that.

now - what about "thank goodness we have anonymous sources stirring up shit begging to be stirred"? to me that is the most frustrating part of all this.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

now if you're to believe trump made a call to have biden investigated and we never go to foreign players to do this, go get mad at hillarys camps and the steele dossier. if not, shut up. "it's different when we do it" needs to die a painful death in a public square.

In this case there would be a very big difference. In the case of Hillary it was a private political party paying for information on their opponent, something that happens every day. in the case of Trump it was the US government pressuring another government for information on an opponent.

Surely, you can see the difference.

 

[Care4all]

Whistleblower 'DID NOT actually hear the Trump Ukraine call' | Daily Mail Online

so once again the person going FOUL didn't even hear the conversation and we are back to "well i heard an anonymous source say" OF WHICH has failed every single time the dems did it.

so god damn tired of manufactured rage.

What part of the Trump appointed Inspector General over the Intelligence agencies do you not understand?

And this IG finding after his investigation of the whistleblower complaint, interviewing those who had FIRST hand knowledge... including reading the transcript, which would be under his purview to do,

and this Trump appointed IG, found the whistleblower complaint CREDIBLE and also designated the whistle blower complaint as URGENT, which triggers an automatic turn over of the complaint, to the Intelligence committee leaders, do you not understand?

It matters not that the whistle blower was told about whatever he made a complaint on by someone who was a FIRST hand observer....

The IG got to the first handers and the evidence to make his determination.

I repeat, the IG pulled the trigger, by designating it URGENT.... he found it CREDIBLE...

it could have been designated by him as something not credible or not urgent, BUT HE DID NOT.

 

[gipper]

It's using the power of the office in an attempt to ruin a political opponent. It's a great big no-no in America. It is common in banana republics and dictatorships that are still having elections in an attempt to make the people think democracy still exists.

Isn’t that what Ears tried to do to Donnie?

 

[wamose]

If we had an impartial media, this story wouldn't exist. But rags like the NYT and WaPo along with the liberal radicals at CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC, will continue to run these stories as long as their masters at the DNC want them to.

 

[iceberg]

now if you're to believe trump made a call to have biden investigated and we never go to foreign players to do this, go get mad at hillarys camps and the steele dossier. if not, shut up. "it's different when we do it" needs to die a painful death in a public square.

In this case there would be a very big difference. In the case of Hillary it was a private political party paying for information on their opponent, something that happens every day. in the case of Trump it was the US government pressuring another government for information on an opponent.

Surely, you can see the difference.

at this point i'm tired of the hair splitting so one side can be right and the other wrong. that tactic has been beat to death and has become a "safezone" for your attacks and the whole "do as i say not as i do" crowd. is anything else from my summary incorrect or needs to be broken down?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

now if you're to believe trump made a call to have biden investigated and we never go to foreign players to do this, go get mad at hillarys camps and the steele dossier. if not, shut up. "it's different when we do it" needs to die a painful death in a public square.

In this case there would be a very big difference. In the case of Hillary it was a private political party paying for information on their opponent, something that happens every day. in the case of Trump it was the US government pressuring another government for information on an opponent.

Surely, you can see the difference.

at this point i'm tired of the hair splitting so one side can be right and the other wrong. that tactic has been beat to death and has become a "safezone" for your attacks and the whole "do as i say not as i do" crowd. is anything else from my summary incorrect or needs to be broken down?

There is no hair splitting, why are you being so obtuse.

There are lots of things that we can do as private citizens that it is wrong for the Fed Govt to do, this is not a new thing. Trump was not talking as "candidate Trump", he was talking the leader of one country to the leader of another.

A much closer comparison would be if you believe that Obama used the power of the Fed Govt, as in spying on Trump, against a political opponent.

 

[iceberg]

now if you're to believe trump made a call to have biden investigated and we never go to foreign players to do this, go get mad at hillarys camps and the steele dossier. if not, shut up. "it's different when we do it" needs to die a painful death in a public square.

In this case there would be a very big difference. In the case of Hillary it was a private political party paying for information on their opponent, something that happens every day. in the case of Trump it was the US government pressuring another government for information on an opponent.

Surely, you can see the difference.

at this point i'm tired of the hair splitting so one side can be right and the other wrong. that tactic has been beat to death and has become a "safezone" for your attacks and the whole "do as i say not as i do" crowd. is anything else from my summary incorrect or needs to be broken down?

There is no hair splitting, why are you being so obtuse.

There are lots of things that we can do as private citizens that it is wrong for the Fed Govt to do, this is not a new thing. Trump was not talking as "candidate Trump", he was talking the leader of one country to the leader of another.

A much closer comparison would be if you believe that Obama used the power of the Fed Govt, as in spying on Trump, against a political opponent.

cause until we have proof trump said anything wrong, i'm not going to play "what if" - why are you wanting to bypass facts? i have zero love for biden or the left but i don't see him doing anything wrong here.

i also have seen ZERO PROOF trump did what he is being accused of. in fact, the whistleblower NEVER HEARD the conversation. so in the absence of facts, i'll go ahead and be obtuse, even if that means i have to put you in solitary confinement for laundering my money all these years (shawshank reference. )

as for what our elected officials do - spying on a candidate for "xyz" info would then qualify as a pretty big party foul, given the reasons why they did never really bore out the effort put into it. if you're gonna push this, slam down the accelerator and let's go. i *do* believe trump did that and if you're talking in power official vs. candidate then yes, i can better understand your viewpoint on this. so good analogy.

 

[NoVote]

It's using the power of the office in an attempt to ruin a political opponent.

Joe Biden is not an oponent. Trump has no people running for office against him that have a single chance in hell of even coming clost. All biden could do, at the worst, is bark at Trumps ankles. What the call Trump made WAS about is to cement the facts that Biden and his Dracula son were Traitors to the country they professed to speak for. Speak for? What filth they really are.

 

[JoeB131]

The call WAS NOT about Joe Biden. It was about his son using his father's position WHEN HE WAS VP long before Donald Trump even declared his run for the presidency.

A simple question about what the Ukraine was doing about the aleged wrongdoing. Well within the purvue of the president's position.

Not really. First, that investigation was closed a long time ago. Second, Trump was withholding $400 MILLION in aid to the Ukraine to get their attention.

Let's see if Trump releases the full transcript tomorrow... my guess is he won't.