NottsClaret wrote:Speaking of Presidents, this should be relevant to one or two posters, if they have a little self-awareness.

https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1189506819028328449

FCBurnley wrote:The winner of the 2020 election will be next POTUS unless Pence takes over prior to the election.

FCBurnley wrote:No proof so far of him asking for any favor in exchange for military aid unlike Biden who was stupid enough to admit it in front of the cameras. A lot more to come on Ukraine yet. I assume you have some proof re the second part of your question otherwise you would not be asking.

FCBurnley wrote:I don’t answer hypothetical questions. It is a waste of valuable time. You seem to be getting very frustrated at any lack of proof. When you have actual proof come back and I will happily discuss it with you.Good night.

Imploding Turtle wrote:I really hope you lie to your family about your support for him, otherwise they're going to be so ashamed of you.

FCBurnley wrote:You really are sinking to new depths. Here are the facts. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden as stated in the transcript. He did not threaten to withdraw military aid aka quid pro quo. You conveniently forget this key fact in your ‘proof’. Biden however bragged on video that he threatened to withdraw military aid unless the prosecutor who was looking into Hunter Biden’s corruption was fired. Biden’s actions were 100% corrupt and you know it. End of conversation. But hey you continue to waste your life looking for non existent proof of Trumps quid pro quo. I have better things to do with my life than argue about your fantasies. So you just carry on with your threats and insults and I will continue to rise above them

So you just carry on with your threats and insults and I will continue to rise above them

FCBurnley wrote:FCB No proof so far of him asking for any favor in return for military aid. ( Quote in BOLD on post 260 )

IT `FCBurnley : SHOW ME PROOF TRUMP ASKED FOR A FAVOUR ( Quote in BOLD post 267 )

Read post 265 by FCB first 2 lines

MISSING IN ACTION. The words `In return for military aid~

Will anybody finding the lost words please return them to IT.

FCBurnley wrote:Usual lies and abuse. Where did Ukraine leader say he’s ready to receive military aid ? Or did you make that up as well

Imploding Turtle wrote:Ambassador Sondland has flipped on Trump and admitted, in sworn testimony, that he told Ukraine that military aid was tied to their commitment to the investigations that Trump wanted.

What say you, FSBurnley?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... -ios-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -fake-news

elwaclaret wrote:It tickles me that, although I cannot stand Trump, people cannot accept what is before their eyes. If the Impeachment was going well for the democrats, it would be all over the news. That does not mean he is not guilty, but if it fails the Democrats will be crucified for this... and so far it is not looking like there is coming to be a coupe de anything. But time will tell.

Imploding Turtle wrote:What are you talking about? They've got multiple people testifying under oath that Trump is a corrupt piece of **** who tried to bribe Ukraine in exchange for personal favours. How is that less important than your idea that it's not in the news enough?

Not that i think you're right, btw. It is all over the news. And it'll be all over the news even more when the public hearings begin. Right now they're holding depositions, which are done in secret, so what news there is to report is limited. But even what little news there is is huge. Trump, according to multiple witnesses testifying under oath, engaged in an attempt to bribe/extort personal favours out of Ukraine's new president in exchange for military aid and an official White House visit.

elwaclaret wrote:Fair enough not seen much news, but little comment on things like news night or nothing jumped out at me on News at ten which is about as much as I can commit to at the mo. Just think I’d be more aware if there was a Nixon /Frost moment. They don’t impeach Presidents lightly.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Well, there was that one time a president lied about a blowjob. That was super serious.

elwaclaret wrote:Yes, but it failed.
And from memory it wasn’t what he did or didn’t do so much as “not have sexual relations”, being disingenuous (at best ) with the truth under oath while President.

elwaclaret wrote:Yes, but it failed.
And from memory it wasn’t what he did or didn’t do so much as “not have sexual relations”under oath while President.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Oh, he definitely committed perjury (by lying about the blowjob) and that's definitely what they impeached him for, because that's all they got our of the Whitewater investigation. That's why the impeachment backfired on Republicans. They went at it with an independent counsel trying to find deep corruption in Clinton's dealings, but in the end they found nothing and all they could get him on was lying about a blowjob.

With Trump the Dems already have more than enough evidence to convict Trump of a fuckton of corruption in a criminal court, but impeachment isn't a criminal process, so he'll get away with it when Republicans acquit him. But he'll only get away with is so long as he's president. When he's out of the White House you can bet prosecutors will be going after him.

elwaclaret wrote:The Republicans have forgiven him for the curd retreat... that for me was the best chance of him getting impeached. Another term might see him carried out in a box though.... national hero. Now that would be funny on whatever level you view it.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Ambassador Sondland has flipped on Trump and admitted, in sworn testimony, that he told Ukraine that military aid was tied to their commitment to the investigations that Trump wanted.

What say you, FSBurnley?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/p ... -ios-share" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

grapidianclaret wrote:Thats pretty much all the Ambassadors involved admitting the quid pro quo existed. Only the white house refuting it now. And obviously the Republican party. And FCBurnley of course.
What proof would be acceptable for the Republicans and FCBurnley?
Maybe if they found Hillary's missing emails and they mentioned a quid pro quo?

Imploding Turtle wrote:0% of this is true.

Go on, Uwe. Link your sources for this information. We could all do with a laugh.

Uwe Noble wrote:Try this for starters. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... ssion=true" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The Flynn case is about to be thrown out for FBI corruption.

elwaclaret wrote:The Republicans have forgiven him for the curd retreat.

IanMcL wrote:I thought it was Little Miss Muffet?

Vegas Claret wrote:Pretty emphatic from Sondland

Claret-On-A-T-Rex wrote:It should really be game over for Trump.

He's bribed a foreign power to help him falsely blag that his opponent is corrupt.

If he gets away with this and everything else he's done then you may as well simply make the president above the law as it doesn't get much worse than this guy.