Pinche Abogado said:
I'll match, dollar for dollar, the winner, no matter who that may be.
Pinche Abogado said:
I'm convinced that Met is a troll, paid to hit up this board with dem talking points to understand the conservative point of view, then relays the conservative talking points to the overlords to examine how to best address the conservative arguments.
In for $50, can't do $500 lolDeats said:Pinche Abogado said:
I'll match, dollar for dollar, the winner, no matter who that may be.
In as well
Do all tweets "document" things? Or can anything be said on social media? Might want to start getting your documentation from someone's blog.MetoliusAg said:
One of the many ludicrous narratives being passed around by Trump supporters is the claim that Trump is genuinely concerned about corruption in foreign countries.
The truth: Trump doesn't care about corruption and never has. He's been neck deep in it his entire adult life, and he has deeply engaged in corruption to enrich himself for decades.
Here's a twitter thread documenting some of Trump's long record of "deep concern about corruption":
Don't read it if you're a Trump supporter. The truth might make you go blind.
aggiehawg said:Ambassador Marie (Masha) Yovanovitch, March 5, 2019 LINKQuote:
I think one thing, coming after last week's decision, would be passing actually passing, not just proposing a new and better amendment to the criminal code that not only restores illicit enrichment as an anti-corruption tool but reinstates the dozens of cases that were undermined by the court decision.
Instead of annulling anti-corruption laws, there are some that believe that the Constitutional Court could focus its attention on revoking the law that requires civil society to file electronic asset declarations, which was clearly intended to undermine the effectiveness of those like media representatives who expose corruption and hold elected representatives accountable.
To ensure the integrity of anticorruption institutions, the Special Anticorruption Prosecutor must be replaced. Nobody who has been recorded coaching suspects on how to avoid corruption charges can be trusted to prosecute those very same cases.
Those responsible for corruption should be investigated, prosecuted, and if guilty, go to jail. And in order for that to happen, all of the elements of the anti-corruption architecture must be in place and must be working effectively.
Why is that important? For several reasons.
First, embassies are not supposed to meddle in internal politics of their host countries. This was a a little over a month before the Ukrainian elections. But when it comes to the diplomatic mission in Kyiv they have often strayed well beyond the rules, Geneva Convention be damned.
But she didn't there. From the same speech:Now does that make it sound as if Yovanovitch took the hands off approach as she has claimed? Or does it make it appear more likely that she did exactly what Lutsenko said she did? Tell him who he could and could not prosecute? And where is she getting her information on who is or is not a "flawed" judiciary candidate in her esteemed estimation?Quote:
The High Qualifications Commission, we believe, should consider seriously questions about the integrity of judicial candidates.
We don't understand what the reason would be to appoint demonstrably flawed candidates to the country's highest court, especially when there are other qualified candidates without such concerns available.
And the Public Integrity Council must be given more power to prevent bad apples from continuing to corrupt the judiciary.
As has been so long discussed in Ukraine I mean, for decades, really MPs, who continue to enjoy immunity from prosecution, a situation that everyone recognizes is ripe for abuse, should vote to end that immunity for the next Rada.
The government of Ukraine should also immediately fund a complete audit of Ukroboronprom and declassify the State Defense Order to the maximum extent possible. This will promote transparency and fight corruption in the defense sector.
Turning a blind eye to corruption in the defense sector is taking food, medical treatment, and weapons out of the hands of Ukraine's brave soldiers. And the government should investigate and prosecute cases of corruption at Ukroboronprom and elsewhere.
Maybe she's getting her marching orders from somebody else, not Pompeo?
As John Solomon reports:Much More HereQuote:
Up to that point, I had focused months of reporting on Ukraine on the U.S. government's relationship with a Ukraine nonprofit called the AntiCorruption Action Centre, which was jointly funded by liberal megadonor George Soros' charity and the State Department. I even sent a list of questions to that nonprofit all the way back in October 2018. It never answered.
Given that Soros spent millions trying to elect Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump in 2016, I thought it was a legitimate public policy question to ask whether a State Department that is supposed to be politically neutral should be in joint business with a partisan figure's nonprofit entity.
State officials confirmed that Soros' foundation and the U.S. embassy jointly funded the AntiCorruption Action Centre, and that Soros' vocal role in Ukraine as an anticorruption voice afforded him unique access to the State Department, including in 2016 to the top official on Ukraine policy, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. (That access was confirmed in documents later released under FOIA to Citizens United.)
Soros' representatives separately confirmed to me that the Anti-Corruption Action Centre was the leading tip of the spear for a strategy Team Soros devised in 2014 to fight corruption in Ukraine and that might open the door for his possible business investment of $1 billion. You can read the Ukraine strategy document here and Soros' plan to invest $1 billion in Ukraine here.
Just something to chew on before she testifies tomorrow. By all means, follow all of the links Solomon provides and come to your own conclusions. But to me, Soros lurking in the background with a one billion dollar investment in Ukrainian businesses unless certain people are removed or installed with the full cooperation of this ambassador raised my eyebrows.
I'm feeling sorry for the Ukrainian people. They are caught in the middle between being under Putin's thumb or Soros'. And since when has Soros ever done something that is for the good of a country (crashing their currencies) instead of line his own pockets?
My .02, FWIW.
mugwurt said:Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.aginlakeway said:So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?MetoliusAg said:Thanks. Every day is a good day.aginlakeway said:
You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!
MetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
Here is the correct answer.Deats said:MetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
Do you understand "burden of proof"?
I'll answer for you, "no"
This is America, silence doesn't equal guilt here. I know you demo-rats wanna make this another communist **** hole where not testifying against yourself is a one way ticket to the gulag but that's not a thing here.MetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
Why doesn't Schiff and his kangaroo sham of an impeachment whatever subpoena them? If he has the power to actually issue *REAL* supoenas then he can get the courts to uphold them. Case closed. They will HAVE to appear.MetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
And I remember Bill Clinton saying back in 1992 saying "character doesns't matter its the economy stupid !!"Pinche Abogado said:
Out of curiosity, how much does Sharia Blue pay?
Your propaganda war has failed. America knows.
The Democratic Party is dead.
Why would he? Its Schiff's job to get witnesses to testify. I'm starting to think you don't understand how this worksMetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
Not up to snuff on the separation of powers, either.Deats said:MetoliusAg said:captkirk said:Amash is a moronMetoliusAg said:
Amash on impeachment:
If Amash is wrong, then why doesn't Trump demand that Mulvaney, Perry, Bolton, Kupperman, Eisenberg, Giuliani, and Pompeo testify?
Likewise, why is Trump withholding the subpoenaed documents, texts, and emails?
Do you understand "burden of proof"?
I'll answer for you, "no"
MetoliusAg said:
Another telling sign of how bad things went for Trump & Giuliani at the impeachment hearing today is evident from looking Trump's twitter feed. He has nothing -- nada -- to counter the facts and witnesses.
He almost never responds, just goes on to the next talking point.aginlakeway said:mugwurt said:Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.aginlakeway said:So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?MetoliusAg said:Thanks. Every day is a good day.aginlakeway said:
You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!
I figured. Big time troll.
She/He/they has been asked multiple times if they think Zelensky is lying. No response.Rapier108 said:He almost never responds, just goes on to the next talking point.aginlakeway said:mugwurt said:Don't waste your time. I have made similar wager proposals, and he is too chicken **** to put his money where his mouth is.aginlakeway said:So no reply to my wager on 2020 election? $500 payable to SPCA. I get Trump. You get field. Deal?MetoliusAg said:Thanks. Every day is a good day.aginlakeway said:
You're off and running early this morning ...Hope you have a great day!
I figured. Big time troll.
Quote:
Why would he? Its Schiff's job to get witnesses to testify. I'm starting to think you don't understand how this works
Then subpoena them and let the courts decide. That's our process for determining separation of power questions under our Constitution. Pretty dang simple.Gary Johnson said:Quote:
Why would he? Its Schiff's job to get witnesses to testify. I'm starting to think you don't understand how this works
Give us a break with this. The dems would love to get those guys on the stand, Trump is obstructing. These are the first hand accounts and documents, let's see them.
Give me your tax records. Show me your bank account. Give me your address.Gary Johnson said:Quote:
Why would he? Its Schiff's job to get witnesses to testify. I'm starting to think you don't understand how this works
Give us a break with this. The dems would love to get those guys on the stand, Trump is obstructing. These are the first hand accounts and documents, let's see them.
Doesn't know what obstruction isGary Johnson said:Quote:
Why would he? Its Schiff's job to get witnesses to testify. I'm starting to think you don't understand how this works
Give us a break with this. The dems would love to get those guys on the stand, Trump is obstructing. These are the first hand accounts and documents, let's see them.
Why would the Dems care about whether Trump complains or not? If they were really only after the truth, we have a process for that. Use it and let the chips fall where they may.Gary Johnson said:
That's a different objection. Then when it drags on for months Trump will complain about that.
