"This is a coverup"

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

I do think that he violated the public's trust

If that were an actual crime a lot of officials would be behind bars.

The rest of what you listed, I can think of the last 4 presidents have done similar with no threats of impeachment.

The fact that the people didnt want her does not make him a criminal.

Well in this case the determinants of 'crime' are the legislature so its once again a byproduct of circumstance; when you've got enough support it becomes a crime and when you don't it languishes (as whats going on with Trump will likely languish in the Senate before dying).

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: thedigirati

the "accuser" cannot be revealed yet must be belived (she must be believed)

Nobody has to believe the whistleblower. They conveniently pointed is right in the direction of Trumps literal 'TOP SECRET CRIME SERVER'....

I'd imagine that has more than enough evidence.

So yo do not believe that calls from Mexico and Australia were leaked?

or do you believe that the President should not keep secret information secure?

You do know why they went to a more secure server, right? or are you ignoring security for now?

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Wayfarer


Didn't recently uncovered evidence just reveal quotes from the Ukrainian prosecutor saying he WAS fired for investigating Biden's son and Burisma?

Not that I'm aware of. Granted, there are a lot of pundits playing screen defense right now for this so I doubt it would be hard to find someone saying that. I also suspect it would be equally hard to verify their legitimacy/accuracy.

a reply to: Wayfarer
yeah well
I was asking about actual crimes, the kind argued in a court of law

no worries

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: thedigirati

the "accuser" cannot be revealed yet must be belived (she must be believed)

Nobody has to believe the whistleblower. They conveniently pointed is right in the direction of Trumps literal 'TOP SECRET CRIME SERVER'....

I'd imagine that has more than enough evidence.

So yo do not believe that calls from Mexico and Australia were leaked?

or do you believe that the President should not keep secret information secure?

You do know why they went to a more secure server, right? or are you ignoring security for now?

seems everyone has forgotten or does not care that the potus is the ultimate classification authority
he can put what he wants where he want when he wants

imo this whole event looks like an exercise to find leaks, especially when the info wasnt destroyed just moved to a more secure location

a reply to: Wayfarer

a guy named Solomon that has been investigating this for the last 3 years has dumped documents implicating bidens son and proving biden was telling the truth when he bragged.


I think it was about 2 hours ago, there is a thread on here with a link to the docs

I can't imbed on my xbox without many contortions, sorry.

Affidavits are 'Under Oath'....Correct?

Report: Affidavit From Ukrainian Prosecutor Says Joe Biden Wanted Him Out Over Burisma Investigation

“I was forced out because I was leading a wide-range corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine, and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a member of the board of directors.”

www.scribd.com...
dailycaller.com...

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: thedigirati

the "accuser" cannot be revealed yet must be belived (she must be believed)

Nobody has to believe the whistleblower. They conveniently pointed is right in the direction of Trumps literal 'TOP SECRET CRIME SERVER'....

I'd imagine that has more than enough evidence.

So yo do not believe that calls from Mexico and Australia were leaked?

or do you believe that the President should not keep secret information secure?

You do know why they went to a more secure server, right? or are you ignoring security for now?

The president should follow the rules and laws of the office. Those records were not his to sequester in such a fashion. I can understand being upset at leaks (especially when you're strong arming other nations leaders and/or begging them for concessions so you don't appear weak to your people back home) and wanting to lash out at people because your angry, but at the same time we can assume being angry shouldn't justify the president locking the government down into some kind of super secret gestapo where even seemingly innocuous things are kept under lock and key.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Wayfarer


Didn't recently uncovered evidence just reveal quotes from the Ukrainian prosecutor saying he WAS fired for investigating Biden's son and Burisma?

Not that I'm aware of. Granted, there are a lot of pundits playing screen defense right now for this so I doubt it would be hard to find someone saying that. I also suspect it would be equally hard to verify their legitimacy/accuracy.

See my last post (ABOVE)

a reply to: Wayfarer

Those records were not his to sequester in such a fashion.

You have a source for that?
I would love to see such.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I agree , just vote and get it done. Impeach him and have the Senate put him on trial . My opinion is there are many more attempts coming . They have to keep this going until 2020 because it is all they got .

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Wayfarer

Those records were not his to sequester in such a fashion.

You have a source for that?
I would love to see such.

"White House lawyers directed White House officials to remove the electronic transcript of the Zelensky call from the computer system where such transcripts normally are stored. That transcript then was loaded into a “separate electronic system” that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. “One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective.”

Source

To save you some time I'll go ahead and address your previous assertion that the President can classify whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for whatever reason. That being said, since its obvious nothing in the call pertained to national security, and as many have said that what was in the transcript wasn't criminal in any way: why would Trump move to lock this down and hide it so quickly before it came out?

originally posted by: 10uoutlaw
a reply to: shooterbrody

I agree , just vote and get it done. Impeach him and have the Senate put him on trial . My opinion is there are many more attempts coming . They have to keep this going until 2020 because it is all they got .

I think if they actually had the house votes I think they would have.
I don't think there are enough dems (up for re election as all house reps are) that don't care about having to explain voting to impeach with out a crime their constituents can relate to. IE: lying, stealing, ect...
2nd hand rumors wont cut it with most americans imo

a reply to: Wayfarer
I was asking for a source saying the potus was not the ultimate classification authority.
You nor no one else gets to challenge that authority.
He as potus doesnt have to tell anyone why.

nice try tho

a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

a reply to: thedigirati

this is Kavannaugh 2.5.

Nope. Nothing like it. This is Nixon 2.5!

a reply to: Sillyolme

Don't be Silly!
The Rule of Law doesn't hinge on hearsay.
Close enough is NOT good enough to convict in a real court.
Splitting hares is for prep cooks.

ganjoa

a reply to: RadioRobert

Radio Robert - your post is dead-on!

Very well written too. My only concern is that in order to effectively present this here required you to use a little finesse and nuance of language in your post.

I'm pretty sure that finesse, nuance and careful thought and consideration are totally beyond most Dems today.

So although I and others like me here really appreciate the post - those that would benefit most from it will never understand it because they are so blinded by partisan hatred - *they can't even see it in the first place.*

And I simply don't know how to fix willful, confident ignorance.

Does anyone?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: thedigirati

this is Kavannaugh 2.5.

Nope. Nothing like it. This is Nixon 2.5!

nah
that was obama

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

Absolutely! Because...because...Orange Man Bad!