Do you think Trump put political and financial pressure on Ukraine to persecute a political opponent and his relatives?

Everything on this seems headed in the direction of impeachment. You have had 3 "toss-up" seat Democrats switch from "no" to "yes" on impeachment so far today, with multiple outlets implying that the dam is about to break on this over the next week.

You have Joseph Maguire testimony on Thursday that is considered an inflection point for the administration's stance on releasing the relevant documents (right now it appears like they're going to release just the call transcript, but not the full IG report on the whistleblower's information, which is very likely to be more than just that one phone call).

There's two choices in the next week:

1. IG report being released to Congress (as Trump administration is obligated to do). If it's as bad as its implied, Trump likely impeached. If it's overhyped, Pelosi likely to put the brakes on it.
-OR-
2. IG report not released to Congress, impeachment >95% probability.

So unless this is overhyped, we're headed in the impeachment direction, and impeachment likely happens December-January time frame. Buckle up.

Dude. I'll call Biden dirty all day without a problem. I'm just not going to bet that he's indicted. No sarcasm or innuendo involved. Why wouldn't he be dirty?

This is almost a pro-impeachment stance from Romney (if the Trump admin withholds the IG report):


https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/st...54050226057221

Should indicate where moderate Dems will wind up on this issue.

Will Trump likely be GUILTY in the Senate of impeachment? Very probably not, huge bar to clear.

But if the IG report is bad enough (as in, some moron in the White House put it in written form that we're withholding aid pending an investigation per Trump's order), it's a possibility.

LOL Luckbox is 100% noise and reading his posts are a waste of time. He literally called whatever Giuliani says the news, inferring that it was like stating a possible fact that should be considered on its merits. Dude is literally the presidents lawyer and it would be malpractice for him to do anything but what is in his clients best interest.

The Hill had a pretty good take on this story in my opinion and suggested that Biden was indeed likely guilty of what he is accused of. In a different story along the same vein they suggested that the real issue with Impeachment is that the Dems are not willing to do this on the basis of the Emoluments Clause because they (the DNC) is guilty of the same (ldo).

Lock them all up, don't run Biden, hope the economy is in the shitter, block Trump from starting any illegal wars and easy game? I think even Warren could beat him under this hypothetical, but you know the DNC won't allow it since 'it might make them look bad (and stop their free money bribery machine).'

Carry on with arguing with Lockbox about how none of his posts make any sense and he always regurgitates whatever is on the front page of drudge.

Okay. Still think it is dishonorable to accuse people of being crooked without any evidence.

Because he wants to be president of the USA.

Lol.
I'm not stating anything as fact. But I think Giulani pressing this hard means there might be something behind it. And you seem to agree ironically. But yes, when the president's lawyer says something it is news.

How do you think a person gets to be president?

By winning the US presidential election.

That's ONE way. There is also the Gerald Ford method.

I've literally seen you link 15000 post threads as your evidence more than once. Discussing with you a huge waste of time and you like our president, seem to take every possible position so you're sure to be right >30% of the time. Giuliani is an idea trashcan without a shred of morality, his position is all deflection and he wouldn't answer the questions about Trumps graft because he knows that Trump has violated the constitution. He is of the party of strict constitutionalism until it contradicts their federalist, banker sensibilities. It will be a good day in America when we don't have to listen to Giuliani ever again, no matter how surely and quickly another money apologist comes along to fill his shoes.

You have not seen me link 15,000 post threads as evidence more than once. That is a lie. The one instance that you're thinking of I made a mistake in linking and fixed it. If you don't want to discuss anything that's fine but I have not done what you are alleging I've done.
Now I read that Hill article and ironically they also make some of same points as me about the outcome of all this. And you agree with me too but you have a really interesting way of showing it.

You did the exact same thing to someone else posting a 1k+ post thread claiming 'your ideology was somewhere in these posts.' You are literally the worst on the entire forum about word soup replies, giving homework and playing team ball. Can't you just accept criticism and move on?

The Hill is totally NOT making the same points as Rudy Giuliani. You can take my word for it or not. I'm not parsing any more of Giuliani's bullshit because he was full of **** before he was Trumps lawyer and full of **** after. You were literally posting a video up a few posts claiming Biden admitted his bribery when he has admitted no such thing. Move on, your typing is wasted here. Pardon me if I don't just take your word for it.

No. Wrong. I said Biden admitted to pressuring the Ukrianians to fire the prosecutor to protect his son. Only the last part of that is wrong. I'll try to keep the facts straight but you should try to do the same.

That's not even what he says lol. Facts are wasted on you and watching the video is proof to anyone who made it this far.

You want me to quote him word for word? Why do you agree with the hill piece that he's likely guilty?

You can quote whatever you would like. No you can't phrase a question to try to get me to agree with you when I've made it clear what I think. I said what said if your unclear on what I said then that's problem. If others are unclear about what I said they can read what I said. How do you like that homework?

Can someone do an IP check on this guy and see if he is Toothseeker or whatever his name was?

Toothsayer

I know that I am doing a disservice to your health by asking but yeah, I got no idea how a person becomes president. What happens?

Giuliani is a secret progressive, videos say whatever drudge says they said, irregardless whatever was said in the video. Great thread, keep feeding the troll.

If you aren't dirty you're harder to control and harder to trust. That might have even been a part of what Epstein was legitimately involved with even although that's speculation. But there are no good presidents is the moral of the story.

Your issue is one with reading comprehension not with me. I could go through and try to point it all out but I'm not sure what good it would do.

Your wisdom caught up on the fact that the class instills presidents that are dumb as a kinked slinky.

But curious, does the highest power just infiltrate the minds of the stupid so they vote for who they want or is the winner guaranteed ahead of time?

Could voting actually make a difference if we all just shun away from the influence above?

I think this can be seen as a feature not a bug.
We could try to vote third party and see what happens. I'm open to the idea.

The "to protect his son" is the entirety of Trump's accusation. It's well known Joe pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. It's well known Hunter received $3 million from the gas company. However, not only is there no evidence that it was "to protect his son" nor that his son needed protection, but there is convincing evidence to the contrary. Ukraine continues to assert this despite Trump's impeachable pressure on them to change their assessment to one that assists in Trump's reelection. Giuliani's manic innuendos don't change this indictment of Trump.

This is the bottom line. Getting this wrong is telling.


PairTheBoard