(10-09-2019 10:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Dude, you're so far in the tank here. Wow.

So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

Based on what I've seen so far, 100%.
We need to know why the ambassador to the EU, a trump donor, was involved in Ukraine, not a EU member.
We need to know why the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was replaced.
We need to know what the president's personal lawyer was doing with Ukraine and if the State Department was involved with that. Also, who is paying for rudy's "work" and travel, the government or trump.
We need to see the full transcript of the call with Ukraine and other things on the secret server.
Etc.
Dude, there's enough smoke here to choke the east coast!

There's barely enough smoke to choke Jeff Spicoli.........

LOL +3

Seriously, why the F do we NEED to know these things?

Well, YOU don't.

You really don't need to know why a president fired an ambassador when it could have been because she refused to play along in a scheme to withhold funds from an ally unless they helped dig up dirt on a political rival?

You don't need to know why an ambassador (and trump mega-donor and bundler) to the EU was meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, not a EU member?

You don't need to know if the presidents personal lawyer was being directed or paid by the state department to perform God knows what?

These all may turn out to be nothing, but you're a fool if you say they don't warrant further investigation. And there's way more things as well. You can't read the released text messages and come to any other conclusion. If you're being honest.

You've clearly gone all in with the GOP in abandoning everything they once stood for. Shame really. Just more #ETTD.

(10-10-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

Based on what I've seen so far, 100%.
We need to know why the ambassador to the EU, a trump donor, was involved in Ukraine, not a EU member.
We need to know why the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was replaced.
We need to know what the president's personal lawyer was doing with Ukraine and if the State Department was involved with that. Also, who is paying for rudy's "work" and travel, the government or trump.
We need to see the full transcript of the call with Ukraine and other things on the secret server.
Etc.
Dude, there's enough smoke here to choke the east coast!

There's barely enough smoke to choke Jeff Spicoli.........

LOL +3

Seriously, why the F do we NEED to know these things?

Well, YOU don't.

You really don't need to why a president fired an ambassador when it could have been because she refused to play along in a scheme to withhold funds from an ally unless they helped trump dig up dirt on a political rival?

You don't need to know why an ambassador (and trump mega-donor and bundler) to the EU was meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, not a EU member?

You don't need to know if the presidents personal lawyer was being directed or paid by the state department to perform God know what?

These all may turn out to be nothing, but you're a fool if you say they don't warrant further investigation. And there's way more things as well. You can't read the released text messages and come to any other conclusion. If you're being honest.

You've clearly gone all in with the GOP in abandoning everything they once stood for. Shame really. Just more #ETTD.

(10-09-2019 03:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 12:35 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The fact that you did nothing wrong is quite often a reason not to cooperate. When the "investigation" is not a legitimate fact-finding but rather a witch hunt determined to find something to crucify you for, cooperating with them may not be the best plan.

Dude, you're so far in the tank here. Wow.

So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

Based on what I've seen so far, 100%.

We need to know why the ambassador to the EU, a trump donor, was involved in Ukraine, not a EU member.
We need to know why the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was replaced.
We need to know what the president's personal lawyer was doing with Ukraine and if the State Department was involved with that. Also, who is paying for rudy's "work" and travel, the government or trump.
We need to see the full transcript of the call with Ukraine and other things on the secret server.
Etc.

Dude, there's enough smoke here to choke the east coast!

There's barely enough smoke to choke Jeff Spicoli.........

I actually LOL'd. Nicely played!

(10-10-2019 09:20 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 03:08 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 02:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 01:26 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

Based on what I've seen so far, 100%.
We need to know why the ambassador to the EU, a trump donor, was involved in Ukraine, not a EU member.
We need to know why the United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Louise Yovanovitch, was replaced.
We need to know what the president's personal lawyer was doing with Ukraine and if the State Department was involved with that. Also, who is paying for rudy's "work" and travel, the government or trump.
We need to see the full transcript of the call with Ukraine and other things on the secret server.
Etc.
Dude, there's enough smoke here to choke the east coast!

There's barely enough smoke to choke Jeff Spicoli.........

LOL +3

Seriously, why the F do we NEED to know these things?

Well, YOU don't.

You really don't need to know why a president fired an ambassador when it could have been because she refused to play along in a scheme to withhold funds from an ally unless they helped dig up dirt on a political rival?

You don't need to know why an ambassador (and trump mega-donor and bundler) to the EU was meddling in the affairs of Ukraine, not a EU member?

You don't need to know if the presidents personal lawyer was being directed or paid by the state department to perform God knows what?

These all may turn out to be nothing, but you're a fool if you say they don't warrant further investigation. And there's way more things as well. You can't read the released text messages and come to any other conclusion. If you're being honest.

You've clearly gone all in with the GOP in abandoning everything they once stood for. Shame really. Just more #ETTD.

All you have is the same thing Biden has. Don’t focus on me, he says, you need to look at the other guy. Biden is dirty and it will certainly come out. He will regret the day he decided he could be president.

Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

(10-10-2019 09:34 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

I'm fine with investigating everyone here, but you're likely wasting your time with Biden. Scores of folks have already looked into it and pretty much everything has been debunked.

No Quid Pro Quo.

(10-10-2019 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:34 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

I'm fine with investigating everyone here, but you're likely wasting your time with Biden. Scores of folks have already looked into it and pretty much everything has been debunked.

No Quid Pro Quo.

Why do you not feel the same about Trump? Scores and scores of people have looked into the phone call and said there is nothing there. There was no QPQ. No where in the conversation did Trump say “you do this and I’ll do that”. No QPQ.

(10-10-2019 09:43 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:34 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

I'm fine with investigating everyone here, but you're likely wasting your time with Biden. Scores of folks have already looked into it and pretty much everything has been debunked.

No Quid Pro Quo.

Why do you not feel the same about Trump? Scores and scores of people have looked into the phone call and said there is nothing there. There was no QPQ. No where in the conversation did Trump say “you do this and I’ll do that”. No QPQ.

Because more people have looked at it and said there was a QPQ. Plus you have him on camera, joking or not, asking the same thing of China.

(10-10-2019 09:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:43 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:34 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

I'm fine with investigating everyone here, but you're likely wasting your time with Biden. Scores of folks have already looked into it and pretty much everything has been debunked.

No Quid Pro Quo.

Why do you not feel the same about Trump? Scores and scores of people have looked into the phone call and said there is nothing there. There was no QPQ. No where in the conversation did Trump say “you do this and I’ll do that”. No QPQ.

Because more people have looked at it and said there was a QPQ. Plus you have him on camera, joking or not, asking the same thing of China.

yep, you've got it all figured out commietommie....from muh poles to the 'kraine to msm bias and insane in the membrane...

(10-10-2019 09:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:43 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:38 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 09:34 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Everyone, EVERYONE, agrees there was a lot of corruption in the Ukraine. Explain why it shouldn’t be investigated. And since it occurred during the obama administration shouldn’t the players be investigated? Biden was a major player there. The point man appointed by Barry. Since it happened under his watch why is it so outlandish that Trump feels America should know where it’s money went?

I'm fine with investigating everyone here, but you're likely wasting your time with Biden. Scores of folks have already looked into it and pretty much everything has been debunked.

No Quid Pro Quo.

Why do you not feel the same about Trump? Scores and scores of people have looked into the phone call and said there is nothing there. There was no QPQ. No where in the conversation did Trump say “you do this and I’ll do that”. No QPQ.

Because more people have looked at it and said there was a QPQ. Plus you have him on camera, joking or not, asking the same thing of China.

So the people there said there was no QPQ. The state department said there was no QPQ. The justice department said there was no QPQ.
Only Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the MSM, Mitt Romney and the rest of the democrats say there was something there, if you only listened hard enough and got the wink wink meaning of Trump’s words.
And the email accounts? You have seen the entire conversation I hope? Not just the cherry picked sections released by Shifty’s fake committee. If not, you should pay closer attention. That means read and watch both sides before you make up your mind. That is unless your mind is already made up....

(10-10-2019 11:06 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So the people there said there was no QPQ. The state department said there was no QPQ. The justice department said there was no QPQ.
Only Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the MSM, Mitt Romney and the rest of the democrats say there was something there, if you only listened hard enough and got the wink wink meaning of Trump’s words.
And the email accounts? You have seen the entire conversation I hope? Not just the cherry picked sections released by Shifty’s fake committee. If not, you should pay closer attention. That means read and watch both sides before you make up your mind. That is unless your mind is already made up....

Wait.... So you're telling me the Pompeo led State Department and Burr led justice department say there's no QPQ???

****... Must be true then. Case closed folks! Pack 'er up.

(10-10-2019 01:19 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 11:06 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So the people there said there was no QPQ. The state department said there was no QPQ. The justice department said there was no QPQ.
Only Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the MSM, Mitt Romney and the rest of the democrats say there was something there, if you only listened hard enough and got the wink wink meaning of Trump’s words.
And the email accounts? You have seen the entire conversation I hope? Not just the cherry picked sections released by Shifty’s fake committee. If not, you should pay closer attention. That means read and watch both sides before you make up your mind. That is unless your mind is already made up....

Wait.... So you're telling me the Pompeo led State Department and Burr led justice department say there's no QPQ???

Not a smidgeon....

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.

Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

(10-10-2019 01:19 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 11:06 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So the people there said there was no QPQ. The state department said there was no QPQ. The justice department said there was no QPQ.
Only Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the MSM, Mitt Romney and the rest of the democrats say there was something there, if you only listened hard enough and got the wink wink meaning of Trump’s words.
And the email accounts? You have seen the entire conversation I hope? Not just the cherry picked sections released by Shifty’s fake committee. If not, you should pay closer attention. That means read and watch both sides before you make up your mind. That is unless your mind is already made up....

Wait.... So you're telling me the Pompeo led State Department and Burr led justice department say there's no QPQ???

****... Must be true then. Case closed folks! Pack 'er up.

That’s exactly what I’m telling you. Who do you believe? You see, you don’t even know who you believe because you don’t even know who is making the allegations. You are the dog on a leash here and you don’t even know it....
Laugh your ass off now and look like an ass later......

(10-10-2019 10:25 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 01:19 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 11:06 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So the people there said there was no QPQ. The state department said there was no QPQ. The justice department said there was no QPQ.
Only Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, the MSM, Mitt Romney and the rest of the democrats say there was something there, if you only listened hard enough and got the wink wink meaning of Trump’s words.
And the email accounts? You have seen the entire conversation I hope? Not just the cherry picked sections released by Shifty’s fake committee. If not, you should pay closer attention. That means read and watch both sides before you make up your mind. That is unless your mind is already made up....

Wait.... So you're telling me the Pompeo led State Department and Burr led justice department say there's no QPQ???

****... Must be true then. Case closed folks! Pack 'er up.

That’s exactly what I’m telling you. Who do you believe? You see, you don’t even know who you believe because you don’t even know who is making the allegations. You are the dog on a leash here and you don’t even know it....
Laugh your ass off now and look like an ass later......

that's the DNC slogan.....

(10-10-2019 10:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.

Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

No objective person can look at all the facts known currently and say no further investigation from congress is warranted. So if you're not objective, yes, you're in the tank. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.

And I'm not afraid to say at all that I was in the tank for Obama, but at the same time I can objectively say he botched many things as president including his gaffes with the ACA.

And I'm more than confident history will judge me correct. But if not, I'll easily admit I was wrong.

(10-11-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 10:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.

Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

No objective person can look at all the facts known currently and say no further investigation from congress is warranted. So if you're not objective, yes, you're in the tank. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.

And I'm not afraid to say at all that I was in the tank for Obama, but at the same time I can objectively say he botched many things as president including his gaffes with the ACA.

And I'm more than confident history will judge me correct. But if not, I'll easily admit I was wrong.

That's an opinion, sorry, it just is. No matter if you repeat it to yourself a million times it will remain an opinion. No one is in the tank merely for not believing what you believe. I have no confidence in anything whistleblower related primarily due to the Russia nonsense.

(10-11-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 10:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.

Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

No objective person can look at all the facts known currently and say no further investigation from congress is warranted. So if you're not objective, yes, you're in the tank. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.

And I'm not afraid to say at all that I was in the tank for Obama, but at the same time I can objectively say he botched many things as president including his gaffes with the ACA.

And I'm more than confident history will judge me correct. But if not, I'll easily admit I was wrong.

No objective person could look at this ongoing coup attempt and come to any conclusion other than that this is just another in a long line of fabrications by the left. So, if you're not objective, yes, you're supporting a coup attempt. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.

(10-11-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 10:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.
Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

No objective person can look at all the facts known currently and say no further investigation from congress is warranted. So if you're not objective, yes, you're in the tank. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.
And I'm not afraid to say at all that I was in the tank for Obama, but at the same time I can objectively say he botched many things as president including his gaffes with the ACA.
And I'm more than confident history will judge me correct. But if not, I'll easily admit I was wrong.

Saying that no further investigation is warranted is different from saying that the current investigation is a partisan witch hunt. Some investigation may very well be warranted, but not this particular one.

(10-11-2019 02:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-11-2019 12:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-10-2019 10:02 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-09-2019 10:49 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So you think these are legitimate fact-finding investigations? Really?

The most obvious response to your question lies in him attacking YOU for being 'in the tank'. This is the typical leftist tactic of accusing 'you' of being exactly what 'he' is doing.
Few are more in the tank for any 'issue' than he is. You're giving the same legal advice that any lawyer who gets to decide how much he charges rather than being 'appointed' would give their client. They would NEVER say, if you have nothing to hide, be an open book. A prosecutor's job is to prosecute, not to seek equity, fairness or justice. That is the job of the court.

No objective person can look at all the facts known currently and say no further investigation from congress is warranted. So if you're not objective, yes, you're in the tank. Sorry that's inconvenient for you.
And I'm not afraid to say at all that I was in the tank for Obama, but at the same time I can objectively say he botched many things as president including his gaffes with the ACA.
And I'm more than confident history will judge me correct. But if not, I'll easily admit I was wrong.

Saying that no further investigation is warranted is different from saying that the current investigation is a partisan witch hunt. Some investigation may very well be warranted, but not this particular one.

Right, let's wait on AG Barr and House/Senate Republicans to investigate. Are you high?

But I get it. You've already sold your soul to the devil in trump here, so at this point, you might as well just go down with the ship. Sad.