If true, that is problematically bad for Trump.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

MetoliusAg said:

---

If true, that is problematically bad for Trump.

---

Yep. It would raise his chances of senate removal to 0.0% from 0.0%.

What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017???

Metolius posting style: That guy who put on 30 lbs so he now just repeats stuff into the mirror to help "build" his confidence.

Former DOJ prosecutor:

Yep.

will25u said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

---

All Vindman's changes were approved. So everything in the call transcript was correct, per Vindman.

Talking points crumbling.

---

STOP QUOTING THE TROLL...

FireAg said:

---

will25u said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

---

All Vindman's changes were approved. So everything in the call transcript was correct, per Vindman.

Talking points crumbling.

---

STOP QUOTING THE TROLL...

---

WHY ARE WE YELLING? And I DIDN'T QUOTE HIM. I QUOTED SOMEONE ELSE!

FireAg said:

---

will25u said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

---

All Vindman's changes were approved. So everything in the call transcript was correct, per Vindman.

Talking points crumbling.

---

STOP QUOTING THE TROLL...

---

Careful. Metolius like to whine about "ad hominem attack" and get people banned.

MetoliusAg said:

---

Yep.

---

Congress set the date for delivery and Trump delivered.

FireAg said:

---

mugwurt said:

---

FireAg said:

---

will25u said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

---

All Vindman's changes were approved. So everything in the call transcript was correct, per Vindman.

Talking points crumbling.

---

STOP QUOTING THE TROLL...

---

Careful. Metolius like to whine about "ad hominem attack" and get people banned.

---

Bring it...I'm not getting banned for advocating to ignore the troll...trust me...

---

Just saying, mods have been pretty quick to ban for pretty weak reasons.

will25u said:

---

FireAg said:

---

will25u said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

MetoliusAg said:

---

Now that it has been reported that Vindman listened to the July phone call between Trump and Zelensky, and that Vindman testified today that the call readout released by Trump had material omissions, it's easy to see why Trump and the RWM were so hell bent on discrediting & smearing Lt. Col. Vindman and painting him as a double agent and spy before Vindman had even testified.

---

oops. that's not what he just said

---

All Vindman's changes were approved. So everything in the call transcript was correct, per Vindman.

Talking points crumbling.

---

STOP QUOTING THE TROLL...

---

WHY ARE WE YELLING? And I DIDN'T QUOTE HIM. I QUOTED SOMEONE ELSE!

---

I'M JUST CORRECTING THE RECORD!

By the way, to answer the Dims' question about the legality of the government investigating a U.S. citizen in a foreign country.

If a representative for Microsoft bribes a foreign government agent in the foreign country, Microsoft and Microsoft employees are held accountable for breaking U.S. law. The government will likely investigate in that and possibly foreign countries to make the case. If the Dims don't want the executive to have that power, then they need to pass laws stating that U.S. law does not apply to actions outside the U.S. and repeal all such laws.

This would go over well with those who cry about resources extraction companies taking advantage of corrupt third world governments to get around local requirements.

You are filibustering.

Can you answer this:
What does rule of law and truth either one --- let alone respect for the process - have to do with the Democratic Party declaring insurgency in Inauguration week 2017?

What is your take on that? It determines all else.

Setting a meeting or not setting a meeting is not an "official act" according to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, makes it a crime for a public official to "receive or accept anything of value" in exchange for being "influenced in the performance of any official act." An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2016.

---

LINK

aggiehawg said:

---

Setting a meeting or not setting a meeting is not an "official act" according to the Supreme Court.

Quote:

---

Holding: The federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. 201, makes it a crime for a public official to "receive or accept anything of value" in exchange for being "influenced in the performance of any official act." An "official act" is a decision or action on a "question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy"; that question or matter must involve a formal exercise of governmental power, and must also be something specific and focused that is "pending" or "may by law be brought" before a public official. To qualify as an "official act," the public official must make a decision to take an action on that question or matter, or agree to do so. Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event -- without more -- does not fit that definition of "official act." Because jury instructions in the case of former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell were erroneous, and those errors are not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, McDonnell's convictions are vacated.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 27, 2016.

---

LINK

---

A criminal investigation is not considered "anything of value".

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/anything-of-value/

Anything of value refers to any goods that have a certain utility to the recipient that is real and that is ordinarily not given away free but is purchased.
The following is an example of a state law on anything of value:
Anything of value includes the following:
a. a pecuniary item, including money, or a bank bill or note;
b. a promissory note, bill of exchange, order, draft, warrant, check, or bond given for the payment of money;
c. a contract, agreement, promise, or other obligation for an advance, conveyance, forgiveness of indebtedness, deposit, distribution, loan, payment, gift, pledge, or transfer of money;
d. a stock, bond, note, or other investment interest in an entity;
e. a receipt given for the payment of money or other property;
f. a right in action;
g. a gift, tangible good, chattel, or an interest in a gift, tangible good, or chattel;
h. loan or forgiveness of indebtedness;
i. a work of art, antique, or collectible;
j. an automobile or other means of personal transportation;
k . real property or an interest in real property, including title to realty; a fee simple or partial interest, present or future, contingent or vested, within realty; a leasehold interest; or other beneficial interest in realty;
l. a rebate or discount in the price of anything of value unless the rebate or discount is made in the ordinary course of business to a member of the public without regard to that person's status as a legislator;
m. a promise or offer of employment; or
n. any other thing of value that is pecuniary or compensatory in value to a person, or the primary significance of which is economic gain.

Yeah, but did you see that "epic clap-back" to Nunes!?! Check-mate Republicans!

will25u said:

---

---

It takes a complete idiot to not see what is going on here.

Luckily we have a look into those people's thinking in this thread.

I honestly don't understand how the Democrats think this is a benefit to their impeachment sham.

will25u said:

---

I honestly don't understand how the Democrats think this is a benefit to their impeachment sham.

---

Go look at any of the mainstream media websites. Tell me what you see.

If you were to have actually watched the hearings, you would easily see that the stories are selectively picking up sound bites and misrepresenting events.

But the Democrats know that most people won't actually dig into the hearings and make an informed decision, rather they will read the headline on a website or or their newsfeed and over time this slanted reporting will color the opinion of the issues.

It's public opinion steering.

thanks. makes more sense. Nunes couldn't trap a puppy with a box full of old shoes.

1872walker said:

---

will25u said:

---

I honestly don't understand how the Democrats think this is a benefit to their impeachment sham.

---

Go look at any of the mainstream media websites. Tell me what you see.

If you were to have actually watched the hearings, you would easily see that the stories are selectively picking up sound bites and misrepresenting events.

But the Democrats know that most people won't actually dig into the hearings and make an informed decision, rather they will read the headline on a website or or their newsfeed and over time this slanted reporting will color the opinion of the issues.

It's public opinion steering.

---

Yup. It is nothing but gas lighting.

Just like last week, Castor is getting pilloried and roasted on the internet again today by many Trump supporters.

But now even non-Trump folks are laughing at him.

Tbf to the GOP committee's choice for counsel, Castor has been handed a bucket of beach sand by Nunes (and the words & actions of Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Parnas, Fruman, & Sondland) and has been asked to build Hoover Dam.

Jeff Dahmer's defense lawyers must have felt the same way: "Here's $20,000. Come up with a believable defense for this guy who has several murdered people's heads in his apartment."

aggiehawg: do you think Castor will be replaced before tomorrow?

will25u said:

---

I honestly don't understand how the Democrats think this is a benefit to their impeachment sham.

---

They think they're smarter than anyone else.

Troutslime said:

---

will25u said:

---

I honestly don't understand how the Democrats think this is a benefit to their impeachment sham.

---

They think they're smarter than anyone else.

---

This whole charade is a last-ditch effort to drum up public distaste for Trump with independents in order to sway the 2020 election...

That's quite frankly all this is...

Long winded Volker...to many "I"

Another post with no point, discussing no crimes, the contents of which have 0 impact on anything.

He has no thoughts on his own. He just posts what they tell him to on his dim website.

He has a fair point--Castor is awful. The GOP should dump this guy, if they can. Have him call in sick tomorrow.

hbtheduce said:

---

Another post with no point, discussing no crimes, the contents of which have 0 impact on anything.

---

That's all he posts. He's be banned before. He'll be banned again.