.

Screw the Trump ****, lets see how honest YOU are...

Wrong:


You can read this too (it talks about the DOJ doing both civil and criminal investigations):

https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-1-1200...ve-proceedings

Congratulations, you found the word "investigation." The context you quoted plainly has nothing to do with opening investigations into people for perceived conflicts of interest.

It's cool, I never expected you to say you were completely wrong, even though it's clear as day you said something that was flat out wrong. Now, the way the world works, someone unwilling to acknowledge their mistake is indicative of a person with no integrity.

You have never shown anything that says you are remotely correct.

So, you stand by this? If so, you are standing by a false statement. This all ties back to you incorrectly interjecting "criminal" into your questions. Once again, your ignorance on how the world works has led you to stonewall the conversation, becasue you can't admit you were completely wrong.

I understood the sentence fine. It still doesn't answer my question and you know it doesn't. And it's patently obvious you have no interest in answering the question truthfully.

I thought this was interesting, and somewhat relevant to Trump's issues:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/11/t...h-saudi-arabia

Nowhere in that did Trump mention withholding aid. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's not evidence of quid pro quo. Not even close.

There's some irony here that this proposed norm reshaping for America is so closely tied to the Ukraine. Under Yanukovych and later through corrupt prosecutors, a major tool of corruption was executed by smearing political opponents by opening well publicized investigations of them. It was hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys as calls for investigations into the bad guys were met by ongoing investigations of the good guys, opened by corrupt prosecutors bribed with Russian directed money.

This is how it works in a corrupt country. And "lock him up" is more than a chant as we see in Russia with Putin's political opponents. This is why, as MrWookie points out, in America we have a DOJ that handles such investigations independent of political influence and without publicity,to protect the rights of the investigated from abuse of power and unfair smearing of their reputation. This is the "norm" we've established to prevent our systime of justice from turning into the system of corruption seen in Ukraine.

It's ironic that Mulvaney and Mike Pompeo this Sunday, used the camouflage of fighting corruption in Ukraine to justify the injection into Ukraine of a new norm of corruption for America.

For those who argue in favor of this new system of corruption for America because your side is now in power to take advantage of it, just realize that will not always be the case. And think twice before you run for office because you may someday find your name smeared on the front pages as being "under investigation".


PairTheBoard

Watch the SNL sketch I sent you before....in the other thread......watch it daily....no watch it once every hour.



You have to read that transcript and put it into the whole context, using other information, to get the whole picture of it.

Today: Top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine set to testify in impeachment inquiry

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/tr...ny-2019-10-22/

A good read-up on what D&D is......

If I'm buying a used car, and the conversation with the salesman goes like this,

"So, are you going to take the car?"
"I'm want free oil changes for a year, though."

Does it mean,

A) I want the car with no conditions or additional considerations
B) I don't want the car at all
C) I want the car conditionally on free oil changes for a year being included in the deal
D) I am only interested in free oil changes and couldn't care less about the car

You have not demonstrated a single shred of evidence that Presidents order investigations into perceived conflicts of interest. Of anyone, ever. Nothing you have posted demonstrates that, even if you caught me in some poor wording.

"Mr. President, we're behind in the polls. Biden is almost certain to defeat you."

"Damn! If only we could investigate him for something, then we could smear the **** out of him and make it front page news for months like Hillary's emails."

"Well yeah, that would be sweet. But how?"

"We could get the DOJ to do it. Call Barr."

"But sir, Barr will have to bring in the FBI to do the actual investigating part, and they'll know it's a bogus investigation and that will leak. Also, it's a tiny bit illegal for you to direct the DOJ to investigate your opponents. It's kind of like that Watergate thing, where Nixon directed ex-CIA guys to break into the DNC headquarters to find dirt on his opponents."

"Hmm you may be right. Nixon. But we need that investigation to change the polling."

"I agree. But you can't use the normal channels to open it. Hey, here's an idea; what if it came from overseas?"

"Interesting. But where? Russia maybe?"

"No, it can't be Russia. People think you're too close to Putin as it is. But maybe we could use Ukraine..."

"What's a Ukraine?"

"It's a country, sire, I mean, sir. They are looking to buy a big shipment of weapons from us."

"Oh yeah that rings a bell."

"They need the weapons or Russia will invade them and kill everyone. So they're motivated to do things to help us if we need them to. The missiles are about to ship but if we hold them up we could condition the release on them doing us a 'favor' and opening the investigation. Since it's an investigation originating over there you won't be tied to it in any way."

"I like it. Let's hold up the shipment, then I'll tell the Ukraine dude, no investigation, no weapons."

"We'll need a conduit to channel the information between us and them. Someone who can be trusted."

"We can use Rudy for that. He'd bury a hooker if I needed him to."

"Excellent idea. And since he's also your lawyer any conversations you have with him are privileged."

"Okay, get the Ukraine guy on the phone."

"But sir, what if the transcript of the call leaks?"

"It's fine, we can just make the call 'classified', then anyone who leaks it is breaking the law. Sweet gig this potus stuff, I gotta say."

See you're missing the point. The difference is there is a way to leverage relationships in a way that's legal, and a way that's illegal. Let's explore the difference.

President wants the UK Prime Minister to buy more peanuts. This will be good for USA peanut farmers. They will make more money and as a result perhaps vote for the President who made the deal in the next election. Then he says, hey buy more peanuts from us, we'll buy more potatoes from you. Perfectly legal.

Second example President wants UK Prime Minister to buy more peanuts from his peanut farm. So now it's not farmers who benefit, it's his farm in particular. That's the illegal one.

Well first of all 'the left' didn't nominate Clinton, the center did. The left wanted Sanders, remember? But there are more centrists than leftists so he lost.

Second the Clinton stuff is essentially an unfounded conspiracy theory, since you can't produce an iota of evidence that Clinton is corrupt (other than Trump saying so very loudly). And we all know you can't or you or someone like you would have posted it by now.

The lady was investigated by the right for 25 years by their most dedicated muckrakers and at the end of the day they came back with nothing. Over and over again. She either ins't corrupt or she's the most ingenious criminal in the history of the world.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/w...den-in-ukraine

good explanation of Crowdstrike/server conspiracy.

LOL well done. Hey, here's a version for his racism.

From that article I linked...

Although I havent followed this conspiracy at all until recently when Trump brought it up on the phone call, this is my favorite part of it. "let's leak this personal stuff, frame Trump by framing the Russians, suffer poltically for the damaging info we release, and sure why not murder Seth Rich, lie to FBI, and, well...profit!"

That's not how I read that, it seems like they think Rich leaked the materials, so Democrats murdered him as retribution and framed Russia for the leak as damage control.

oh lol. you're no doubt right. i sort of laughed my way through the whole thing. ok so, revenge murder and then a crime of opportunity.

Going to the well again. It worked great with Vince Foster. Why not try it with Seth Rich. As far as his family's feelings - **** em. Putrump needs the propaganda.


PairTheBoard

Could you imagine the theories if a the chairman of the house oversight comittee died while conducting an impeachment inquiry into Obama?

I will let you know who I think the whistle blower is....I will put it in spoilers.....so if you don't want to know it now, you can come back any time later and find it here. Am wondering why no one came up with it by now in this thread, it is quite obvious.