Whistle blower allegation proves dems, media corruption in Biden Ukraine story

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Extorris

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Extorris

Impeachment hearings are not the same as an "inquiry" (a made up term the democrats use)

Six of that a half dozen of the other.

An inquiry requires hearings.

The filings of Articles of Impeachment begin a "Trial" where evidence is weighed.

so you only follow the rules when convenient?
tlb

What rules are you talking about?

You've got to love the gangster mentality at work by the Democrats, and here in this thread. Joe Biden's son is being accused of money laundering and bribery. Joe Biden himself has committed extortion and obstruction of justice to cover this up. (We have video tape of Joe admitting what he did.) But Trump tries to have this investigated, and everyone is like "HOW DARE HE !!!"

Why are so many people interested in protecting criminals? I suspect Rudy is vey familiar with this attitude from his days prosecuting the Mafia.

a reply to: Gorgonite
you left this out

(G)In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:

but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.

you know for a fact this is NOT the case?

or operation of an intelligence activity.

listening in on potus is not an intelligence activity?
really?

(6)In accordance with section 535 of title 28, the Inspector General shall expeditiously report to the Attorney General any information, allegation, or complaint received by the Inspector General relating to violations of Federal criminal law that involves [1] a program or operation of an element of the intelligence community, or in the relationships between the elements of the intelligence community, consistent with such guidelines as may be issued by the Attorney General pursuant to subsection (b)(2) of such section. A copy of each such report shall be furnished to the Director.

oh
so the AG is in this loop.....
who knew....

this is EXACTLY why the potus has privilege in diplomatic matters

a reply to: Extorris
the rules of impeachment
the ones you simply dont care if they follow or not

a reply to: Gorgonite

personal fixer? you forgot the "hand picked" part

I presume it was an oversight on your part.

either way, not credible is not credible.

YOU and I do not get to decide.

and you posting about fake impeachment hearings and then calling others out on being accurate?

no agenda there right?

but this handle is new, today in fact, yet though you have no crediblity yet, you speak as though you do.

makes me wonder whom you were before, if the was a before.

a reply to: Extorris

The examiner is trash reporting.

only because it is opposite your narritive

This statement is not by the either person on the call. It is by the Ukrainian Foreign Minister.

Yep
an official statement from their government

it doesnt matter what you think, it is their official statement

a reply to: Gorgonite

I suppose you missed my earlier response, but the impeachment hearings kicked off with Lewindoski last week. Here is the hearing in its entirety.

oh i missed the floor vote for such.....
could you source such please?

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris

Extorting foreign nations under threat of withholding military aid in exchange for help with a campaign is not "Diplomacy"

In your opinion, too bad the Ukrainians state that was not the case.
It appears all you are looking for is another way to smear the president.
Another meandering investigation into something which was not a crime.

There is nothing but air and opportunity stopping the house dems from taking a floor vote as they have the majority.
Why in the face of such "overwhelming" evidence(lol) have they not?

Perhaps because even they understand there are no "high crimes and misdemeanors" to warrant such?

To be clear, there is no way for you to know if the president committed a crime or not. Unless you have access to the transcript of those calls you cannot claim that Trump did nothing wrong. By that same token, no one can claim they know for a fact he did something illegal. All we know for sure is that a complaint was filed. It was deemed credible by the inspector general and the White House is blocking the legal release of the complaint to Congress.

That is all we know for sure. Sure we can draw conclusions based on the behavior of the president and his personal lawyer but we can't know for sure. This is why it is important for that complaint to be delivered to the oversight committees.

What floor vote are you referencing here? Impeachment vote? If that is your point you are attempting sensationalism as a defense. If the Democrats vote for impeachment before the end of the impeachment hearings, they themselves need to be removed from office. Impeaching a president is a serious action and should only be undertaken if no other recourse is available. Surely, you understand the importance of completing the impeachment hearings first, surely.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Extorris
the rules of impeachment
the ones you simply dont care if they follow or not

Weird.

Please be specific.

a reply to: Gorgonite

can you quote the laws of impeachment please? (how it starts, what goes on ect)

I think you do not understand how it works.

I'm certain from your response you are clueless.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gorgonite

personal fixer? you forgot the "hand picked" part

I presume it was an oversight on your part.

either way, not credible is not credible.

YOU and I do not get to decide.

and you posting about fake impeachment hearings and then calling others out on being accurate?

no agenda there right?

but this handle is new, today in fact, yet though you have no crediblity yet, you speak as though you do.

makes me wonder whom you were before, if the was a before.

Where did you see the complaint was deemed not credible? I'm afraid you may be misreading something.

What do you mean fake impeachment hearings? They are indeed real. Please explain your point here.

What do you mean who I was before? I'm trying to be as logical as I can here but you are really confusing me.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite

I suppose you missed my earlier response, but the impeachment hearings kicked off with Lewindoski last week. Here is the hearing in its entirety.

oh i missed the floor vote for such.....
could you source such please?

You mean this?

www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Gorgonite

To be clear, there is no way for you to know if the president committed a crime or not.

Except for that statement from the official statement from the Ukraine foreign minister.......right?

What floor vote are you referencing here?

the floor vote to begin impeachment proceedings
perhaps you should research how that is done, it requires a floor vote one the dems do not have the votes to pass

abcnews.go.com...

The process begins in the U.S. House of Representatives, where any member of the House may make a suggestion to launch an impeachment proceeding. It is then up to the speaker of the House, as leader of the majority party, to determine whether or not to proceed with an inquiry into the alleged wrongdoing.

fat jerry can blow all the smoke he likes
without a floor vote the process has not begun

then the investigation begins

If there is a decision to proceed, the speaker would decide if the House Judiciary Committee handles the impeachment inquiry, or if a separate special committee is formed.

after the investigation the house will take a simple majority vote to decide to impeach if the investigation recommends charges

then it goes to the senate for a 2/3ds vote which is not there

it is political folly unless you have ACTUAL CHARGES which imo, and the speakers you dont

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gorgonite

I suppose you missed my earlier response, but the impeachment hearings kicked off with Lewindoski last week. Here is the hearing in its entirety.

oh i missed the floor vote for such.....
could you source such please?

You mean this?

www.cnn.com...

nope
an actual floor vote
that was from the committee and was ment to confuse the american public

without the actual floor vote the impeachment proceeding has not begun

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Gorgonite

can you quote the laws of impeachment please? (how it starts, what goes on ect)

I think you do not understand how it works.

I'm certain from your response you are clueless.

Actually, since you seem to be keen on the laws of impeachment, why don't you provide that information. I'm not doing your research for you.

Also, there is absolutely no reason to be so rude. We can have an intellectual debate without the need for name-calling don't you think?

a reply to: shooterbrody

yeah I didn't think they had started impeachment procedings.

But the "bait and switch" tactic seems to work on a few.

how funny.

"Sorry Virgina, no impeachment for you"

a reply to: Gorgonite

well if I am rude because I was correct, and you were misinformed, I am sorry you were duped ok?

a reply to: Gorgonite

A damning timeline:

WASHINGTON—For weeks, lawmakers of both parties struggled to get answers over why the Trump administration delayed money Congress had appropriated to help Ukraine defend itself from the threat of Russian aggression.

www.wsj.com...

April 25: Mr. Biden launched his presidential campaign.

April 28: Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani tweeted about investigations in Ukraine, charging that the “media blackout of the investigations in Ukraine of alleged Democrat corruption” proves there is a “double standard.”

May 9: The New York Times reported that Rudy Giuliani planned to travel to Kiev to pressure the Ukrainian government to press ahead with investigations into Joe Biden and into possible interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Mr. Giuliani subsequently canceled the trip, which he says Mr. Trump knew about.

May 16: Ukraine’s prosecutor general told Bloomberg that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden or his son.

June: Mr. Giuliani met in Paris with an official from the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office to discuss a possible Biden investigation.

July 21: Ukrainians voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Zelensky’s party in parliamentary elections, cementing the political newcomer’s power.

July 25: Mr. Trump and Mr. Zelensky spoke by phone. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Mr. Trump urged Mr. Zelensky about eight times to talk to Mr. Giuliani about an investigation into Mr. Biden’s son, according to people familiar with the matter.

August: Mr. Giuliani met with Andriy Yermak, a top aide to Mr. Zelensky, in Madrid. The two also spoke by phone later in the month. Mr. Giuliani described Mr. Yermak as “very receptive” and said the aide told him Mr. Zelensky would “get to the bottom of all this.”

Late August: The Trump administration began reviewing $250 million in foreign aid to Ukraine, meant to help the country ward off Russia.

Aug. 29: Mr. Trump canceled his planned trip to Poland to deal with Hurricane Dorian. He had been scheduled to meet with Mr. Zelensky there. Mr. Yermak later called Mr. Giuliani to ask whether the president’s decision to cancel his trip was related to Mr. Zelensky; Mr. Giuliani says in an interview he assured him it wasn’t.

Sept. 12: The Trump administration released foreign aid to Ukraine.

www.wsj.com...

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: shooterbrody

yeah I didn't think they had started impeachment procedings.

But the "bait and switch" tactic seems to work on a few.

how funny.

"Sorry Virgina, no impeachment for you"

It got its intended victims.
The dems are terrified to take an actual floor vote.
Tho rep green has been championing impeachment since day one. That guy has integrity, I don't agree with him but I admire his moxey.

a reply to: Extorris
late august they began the review and it was completed by sept 12th?
yeah that is "damning"


if anything that is a land speed record for washington dc