TRUMP - Some people think......... How do you feel?
- Thread starter crazyheart
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
Right. How's Alex Jones these days?
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
Then again sometimes you got to hit them between the eyes so they can wake up or back off
Northwind
Stationary nomad.
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
How's that working for you?
Ritafee
Is Being Human
Here is a quote from the article ... care to make a comment of your own?
To use an old cliché, it’s time to call a spade a spade, to say that no matter how many hands we win in this political poker game, we are playing with a stacked deck of gross immorality and ethical incompetence. And just when we think it’s time to push all our chips to the center of the table, that’s when the whole game will come crashing down. It will crash down on the reputation of evangelical religion and on the world’s understanding of the gospel. And it will come crashing down on a nation of men and women whose welfare is also our concern.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I have not been keeping up with him but it was pretty easy to find this ... so I guess he is still 'out there'.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
FISA fallout
Comey didn't lie , he was wrong
Lol what a joke
Comey didn't lie , he was wrong
Lol what a joke
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
Closed door syndrome works both ways ... some can't get into heaven ... and some can't escape excess comfort ... to be awake to the alternate!
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Mrs.Anteater said:
Trump said he was willing to testify. Then changed his mind as the innocent tend to do.
He has forbade members of his cabinet from testifying.
He wanted the whistleblower named even though Federal Law protects whistleblowers from being named.
He wanted Hunter Biden called though Hunter has no knowledge of the call so not a relevant witness to the allegations.
If it is some other witness I don't know who it might be.
Note also that the Senate Republicans don't want to hear from witnesses. Not even witnesses who might be able to verify Trumps innocence.
Weird.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
blackbelt1961 said:
Lt. Col Alexander Vindman gave first hand testimony on the call in question.
He was listening in on the call.
He is also a credible witness.
The impeachment is not a scam. It has actually happened and cannot unhappen.
Pelosi has held up transmission of the articles because the Senate Republicans have promised that their only answer to a process they allege is flawed is another flawed process.
Which works if you are an eye for an eye kind of guy.
It is not a hallmark of truth.
Mick Mulvaney said, live and on air, that it happened. Trump forbade him to respond to a Congressional subpeona.
How that screams innocence to you baffles me immensely.
Are denials and dismissals indications of closed door relations with what is out and about? Makes for good Tory propaganda ... derived from torus ... along with taurus and other bulls! The gentle bull is thus subverted .. by much Ba'aLustur.
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
what Lt said, was that he (personally) found it inappropriate to ask, " inappropriate" is not an impeachable offense, furthermore, Biden is not Trump's political rival, Biden has not been nominated by his party yet.
it is a scam, since the process has taken on a new partisan baises not fully completed. thats why Pelosi won't send it to the senate and the courts , because she knows she will lose
im not saying Trump is all innocent, actually, I never have, and I would be dumb not to see that Trump is walking a fine line and using it to investigate Biden and his son. As commander and Cheif, Trump has the legal right to do so, was there intent to use another Country in that process? nope, no proof at all, simply hearsay and feelings. What the arguments actually is, on both sides is what were Trumps intentions and intensions without factual proof are nothing.
what blows me away is how people cannot see how the Dems are trying to use this intension they Think is True to outs Trump for their own political agenda
blackbelt1961
Well-Known Member
..
GeoFee
I am who I am becoming...
America is now on the brink of economic catastrophe. The super rich are exercising one last cash grab. Then the money will take flight, leaving the population in a deep depression.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
blackbelt1961 said:
It is not Lt. Col. Vindman's place to decide what is impeachable or not. That is the domain of Legislatures.
He found it inappropriate and he took the required action. He reported it.
It was his report that the whistleblower shared.
The whistleblower gave an actual eyewitness who testified that Trump wanted Ukraine to do him a favour.
Lt. Col Vindman testified that not only did Trump solicit help in investigating Biden, US Ambassador Sondland also promised a meeting with Trump if the Ukrainian President would simply say that Biden was being investigated.
Sondland, by the way, agreed with that testimony and Sondland is not a heresay witness in testimony about what he said that he agreed he did say.
Based on that Testimony it is not unreasonable to conclude that Trump, as President, withheld military aid from an ally in an attempt to get them to smear the Biden's
Based on testimony given privately and then publicly Democrats found that Trump was requesting Ukraine to muddy the waters and would give them concessions if Ukraine consented.
blackbelt1961 said:
Which proves what? That Lt. Col Vindman and Sondland are lying? That what Trump asked would never ever be to his advantage?
And lest it go unnoticed Sondland and Trump were friends and Sondland qualified for his ambassadorship on the strength of his donation to the Trump campaign. Not a never Trumper.
blackbelt1961 said:
He has the right to ensure that American funds are not being used in a corrupt fashion.
He actually dies not have the right to withhold funds from an ally until they investigate a political target of his choosing.
If his request had been if the former l doubt Lt Col. Vindman would have been alarmed.
blackbelt1961 said:
Neither Sondland or Vindman offered hearsay evidence.
The only "feelings" Lt. Col. Vindman shared was his perception that Trump's asking for a favour was inappropriate. So inappropriate he reported it to his superiors.
blackbelt1961 said:
The ask is a solicitation. The withholding of funds for military aud is documented as is the rationale for withholding that aid.
That is the issue.
Both are actual proofs.
blackbelt1961 said:
What I see is that both Speaker Pelosi and minority leader Schumer have, up until the whistleblower report resisted calls for impeachment.
This will be the third time since Congress went blue at Congressional Democrats have asked for Trump to be impeached. Previously Pelosi whipped Congressional Democrats to vote against.
Not so this time around.
Which tells me that something is different this time around and given the testimony on this issue so far it would appear Trump did cross the line.
If the Republicans believed he didn't cross the line there would be witnesses saying h didn't. Trump is forbidding others who were on the call from testifying.
The Senate doesn't want witnesses called at all.
If you think your guy didn't get a fair trial in Congress here is the chance to give him a fair trial now.
And yet they aren't going to.
They have no intention of allowing a fair trial to happen.
Trump wants witnesses. Senate Republicans absolutely do not want witnesses to testify.
Why do you think that is? Because the Democrats have an agenda or the Republicans have an agenda?
Trump has been impeached. Only the Senate has the power to remove him and few think that is even remotely possible and that is not based on any notion that the Senate Republicans are bastions of integrity.
If they were they would ensure a fair trial now that the responsibility falls to them. They abdicated that responsibility and they are brazen about it.
Say what you want about the Democrats.
The ball is now in the Senate's court as soon as they agree to a fair trial.
If they were confident Trump could survive a fair trial they'd make sure it happened.
They know what the witnesses Trump has blocked would say under oath. We've already heard Mulvaney publicly affirm the quid pro quo. Just not under oath.
Redbaron
Pirate fan since the dark ages
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
And when will Trump release his tax returns?
His lame excuse was that he couldn't release them before the 2016 election, because they were under audit. (A claim, by the way, the IRS declared false- there was NO barrier to releasing them, had he wanted to.)
Trump promised he would release them, yet he has never done so. Even though a state court in New York has subpeonaed them, he won't do so.
Every presidential candidate in the last 50 years has willingly done so, but Trump refuses to do so.
WHY NOT? WHAT IS HE HIDING? WHAT DOES HE NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW?
Not really the act of an innocent person with nothing to hide, is it?
His lame excuse was that he couldn't release them before the 2016 election, because they were under audit. (A claim, by the way, the IRS declared false- there was NO barrier to releasing them, had he wanted to.)
Trump promised he would release them, yet he has never done so. Even though a state court in New York has subpeonaed them, he won't do so.
Every presidential candidate in the last 50 years has willingly done so, but Trump refuses to do so.
WHY NOT? WHAT IS HE HIDING? WHAT DOES HE NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW?
Not really the act of an innocent person with nothing to hide, is it?
revjohn
Well-Known Member
I challenge the notion that Trump is a good businessman.
As others have pointed out he has a number of failed business. Losing money on a casino takes a special kind of talent.
Defrauding creditors is not good business.
What Trump managed to do is make his name a brand and that basically was via The Apprentice. Certainly most other ventures where he contributed his brand went bad because the quality of the product sucked (Trump Steaks and University).
Lets not forget the Trump Charity and his management of that. One would think that a good businessman knows the difference between charitable spending and personal spending.
Trump needed a judge to get that distinction.
So no. Not a good businessman. Is he even a successful businessman? Well taxes would tell that story but that is yet another witness Trump will not let talk.
The bloom is off this rose.
The fruit of this particular tree brings neither gentleness, self-control, love, kindness, joy, peace, patience, goodness or faithfulness. The tree is rotten.
As others have pointed out he has a number of failed business. Losing money on a casino takes a special kind of talent.
Defrauding creditors is not good business.
What Trump managed to do is make his name a brand and that basically was via The Apprentice. Certainly most other ventures where he contributed his brand went bad because the quality of the product sucked (Trump Steaks and University).
Lets not forget the Trump Charity and his management of that. One would think that a good businessman knows the difference between charitable spending and personal spending.
Trump needed a judge to get that distinction.
So no. Not a good businessman. Is he even a successful businessman? Well taxes would tell that story but that is yet another witness Trump will not let talk.
The bloom is off this rose.
The fruit of this particular tree brings neither gentleness, self-control, love, kindness, joy, peace, patience, goodness or faithfulness. The tree is rotten.