Trump is genius, and Schiff proved it.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: xuenchen

What transcipt? You mean the non verbatim document realeased that clearly states 'not a transcript'?

Maybe youve got access to documents noone else haas seen yet?

are you stating that what was released isn't what was said? Boy that Vindman sure is an idiot. He was on the call and could have saved the world from Trump.

originally posted by: sunkuong
a reply to: CrawlingChaos

The house had witnesses under oath state that?

Cant seem to find a transcript of that either.

Maybe you have been mandela'ed

You didn't watch vindman and sondland testify?

a reply to: CrawlingChaos

I'd have to watch Vindman's testimony again to be totally sure, and I'm not going to do that right now...

But as I remember, Vindman said that everything in that call read out was correct, but that there was some wording that he had said he submitted to be added, that he felt was missing, that didn't get included. But, he also said that the wording that he suggested they include didn't change anything really important in the call. That the missing "text" didn't really matter.

In other news at the time, I remember learning that Zelinskiy's people wanted certain text removed, because he was smack talking about some world leaders and didn't want that our publicly. Both the Ukraine and US officials approved the call read out that we all got.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well explain to me what he violated

In a nutshell...

The OMB withheld the decision to delay from Congress, after the State Department sent Congress a memo that the money was on it's way.

The law required that anytime this kind of funding is delayed, Congress must "at once" be sent a "special message". That message is also supposed to inform Congress why the funds were withheld. That never happened.

The Democrats described a cover-up, Senators like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham got wind of the delay, and even they couldn't get answers as to why the aid was still not delivered.

When the aid was finally apportioned, it was too late for some of it, so Congress had to pass another bill to get the rest of the money through to Ukraine. Last I heard, $35 million is still to be apportioned.

And the question is:

Since Trump didn't notify Congress, which means Trump broke the law, what does that really mean?

Should it be considered a "high crime" for violating a law based on simple notification?

To me it is a violation similar to getting a moving violation.

And not a valid reason for impeachment

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero

Well explain to me what he violated

In a nutshell...

The OMB withheld the decision to delay from Congress, after the State Department sent Congress a memo that the money was on it's way.

The law required that anytime this kind of funding is delayed, Congress must "at once" be sent a "special message". That message is also supposed to inform Congress why the funds were withheld. That never happened.

The Democrats described a cover-up, Senators like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham got wind of the delay, and even they couldn't get answers as to why the aid was still not delivered.

When the aid was finally apportioned, it was too late for some of it, so Congress had to pass another bill to get the rest of the money through to Ukraine. Last I heard, $35 million is still to be apportioned.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

in the previous election, 2016, the democratic challenger, with help from the DNC, bought foreign dirt which proved to not be true, and used it to impact the election. Now this sounds an awful lot like what is being said Trump did, but the facts don't point to Trump doing anything remotely close to what has been proven to have happened so far.

Knowing that is fact, and not in dispute at all, I have to wonder, what in the # is it that you dems really want here? Are you just offering an example of what is bad behavior, then assuming you can trick the world into believing that your version is factual?

Of the two articles, we have abuse of power, which translates to not liking things that Trump did, and obstruction of Congress, which was Trump claiming executive privilege, which can be sorted out by the courts. I have no doubt Trump did what he did to prolong the proceedings and force the court to decide. So the question to the left is, can Trump not use the court system as all other Americans are guaranteed the right to use?

I don't think Trump is squeaky clean by any means, but all that has been stated and proven isn't even close to what has been proven to have happened in the previous administration. And the fact that none of you seem to care about that, means that the current outrage is idiots responding to the dog whistle as they have been trained to do. Don't be such a tool, rise above it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

When the aid was finally apportioned, it was too late for some of it, so Congress had to pass another bill to get the rest of the money through to Ukraine. Last I heard, $35 million is still to be apportioned.

but the aid was released on September 11th. Is the slow bureaucracy Trump's fault too? And most importantly, has that aid impacted Ukraine's ability to eat MRE's or sleep with warm blankets? If not, then what has been done by Trump is worlds more then what your side did for them previously. Jesus, it's like you sliced out that part of your brain.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: network dude

Indeed. A Vulcan mind meld between the two is the more probable method...and is virtually undetectable. That's what Schiff meant when he said he has evidence but cant talk about it.

You dont talk about the mind meld.

I hope the Trump team rebuttal is the equivalent of the Vulcan Death Grip. Their faces will certainly look the part afterwards.

a reply to: network dude

How, just HOW are you comparing the Steele Dossier procurement with the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine?

Someone lost a slice of brain, for sure, but it's not me.

Knowing that is fact, and not in dispute at all

It's in dispute. Almost everything you claim in this post is in dispute.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

How, just HOW are you comparing the Steele Dossier procurement with the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine?

Someone lost a slice of brain, for sure, but it's not me.

Knowing that is fact, and not in dispute at all

It's in dispute. Almost everything you claim in this post is in dispute.

Lets look at it then. Did Hillary and the DNC pay for the Steele Dossier? Yes.
www.nytimes.com...

So that isn't in dispute at all.

Did the steele dossier affect the election? LOL, I don't know of a metric to measure that, but common sense tells me that it had more of an effect than Trump asking Zalinsky to look into Ukrain corruption to include Hunter BIden. Knowing the following exists.

www.tampabay.com...
October 2017

So how about you put your money where your mouth is and explain what parts I got wrong.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: network dude

How, just HOW are you comparing the Steele Dossier procurement with the OMB hold on aid to Ukraine?

Someone lost a slice of brain, for sure, but it's not me.

Knowing that is fact, and not in dispute at all

It's in dispute. Almost everything you claim in this post is in dispute.

I think what you are trying to convey is that the TRUTH is in dispute. Albeit, by the left and those who despise Trump. That little factoid is why Trump wins again, and why he is always winning against the DNC and their associated acolytes. It's the entire reason Trump beat Hillary so horrifically the first time around.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

When the aid was finally apportioned, it was too late for some of it, so Congress had to pass another bill to get the rest of the money through to Ukraine. Last I heard, $35 million is still to be apportioned.

So what you are saying is it WASN'T in violation due to being released before the end of the fiscal year. That is the key point here...it was released in due time, and ALL was actually spent except 35 million which Congress gave it a pass to be able to be spent past the fiscal year.

You are trying to take a parking ticket at best and turn it into an impeachable offence...good luck.

Speaking of crimes... Remember when... Obama and his Fast and Furious campaign of where he sent illegal guns into Mexico and some made their way back into America and used in crimes? Remember that? I think he used executive privilege and prevented a full investigation. I'm sure this was big on you list of crimes too...lol


It is this type of double standard that the left is failing so miserably at and it will cost them a good deal because so many outside of the REEEee crowd can see it all.

originally posted by: network dude

Did the steele dossier affect the election? LOL, I don't know of a metric to measure that, but common sense tells me that it had more of an effect than Trump asking Zalinsky to look into Ukrain corruption to include Hunter BIden. Knowing the following exists.

We need to also understand that Trump was the Conservative's official candidate for the presidency and Biden was 1 or 16 at the time running for Presidency, so there is a huge difference there. The other part is Trump didn't attack Biden at all, and the worst thing he said was "if any is true it would be horrible", so Trump asking for something to be investigate didn't also mean he demanded what direction that investigation should go as it could have gone in favor of Biden too.

The dossier was nothing more than a hack job on an official candidate invented by bad foreign actors, paid for by the DNC/Hillary that came out right at election time with the sole purpose to influence the election in favor of Hillary. And then use to further the false narrative in impeaching Trump if he won, which that false impeachment narrative started on day one.

I don't even think Biden will make it past the primaries, and when he drops out will the left be OK with investigations then? To be honest Trump wants everyone involved in the 2016 election Russian scam to burn, no one is denying that, and Biden is right there in the middle of it all too. I really think Trump hopes it is Biden that is picked since it will be the easiest win out of them all for him.

originally posted by: CraigMon


Should it be considered a "high crime" for violating a law based on simple notification?

To me it is a violation similar to getting a moving violation.

And not a valid reason for impeachment

Wow I wrote almost the same thing then I read your post here...lol

What does it mean? A $200 fine, slap on the wrist etc or nothing at all since it was released before the end of the fiscal year. It was all released as per the requirements of the Act, but the Senate had to lift their pinkie finger to allow 35 million to go beyond the fiscal year to be spent. This is where we are at in all this, as this is their last stand for impeachment, sad really...

originally posted by: network dude

So how about you put your money where your mouth is and explain what parts I got wrong.

LOL, I didn't think you had anything for this. Weak sauce as usual.

a reply to: odzeandennz

Stupid Things Dems Say for $400, Alex.

Answer : because we were impatient, and knew there was no case.

Liberal : What is "Why the Senate should call witnesses?"

Alex : No, I'm sorry. That's the wrong answer

Conservative : What is "Why didn't we go to court for our witnesses?"

Alex : "Correct"

a reply to: Sookiechacha

In other news at the time, I remember learning that Zelinskiy's people wanted certain text removed, because he was smack talking about some world leaders and didn't want that our publicly. Both the Ukraine and US officials approved the call read out that we all got.

They did not remove the text in the transcript. They were concerned regarding the discussion of Merkel and Macron. Which the conversation leaves one understanding that Zelensky and Trump have little respect for them.

It hinders one diplomatically in negotiations when another discovers you have shared such a poor view on them in private conversations. Even if it is truth, it creates more tension, suspicion and bias in future diplomacy.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: tanstaafl
"Is perjury a crime?"

Is violating the Impound Control Act a violation of the law and the oath to uphold the law that the President took when he was inaugurated?

It is, but apparently every President does it, including your beloved Obama.

That said - in this case - he didn't violate it. The money was released within the required period of time. And he had a great reason for the secondary hold he placed on it.

Is soliciting a foreign agent for election aid a federal crime?

You can spew this ridiculous on its face demwit talking point all you want, it doesn't make it true.

He never, ever, did this, pure and simple.

If you have evidence otherwise, by all means, show it.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Xtrozero
Well, the GAO disagrees with you.

Sweetie, the GAO isn't a law enforcement agency - their opinion means exactly squat.

They didn't inform Congress.

Seriously? And you think this, which every President probably since the 'law' was enacted has done countless times - is an impeachable offense?

Get help Sookie. Get help.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

And that is proof of... what, exactly? We already know that the assistance was held up for short period of time, and why, and that it was released in a timely fashion and in accordance with the law.