Comey? Strzok? Page? This is corruption!
Rank and file agents are, by and large, honorable and reliable. The leadership under Obama was despicable.
- Status
Rank and file agents are, by and large, honorable and reliable. The leadership under Obama was despicable.
D
dvdjs
Guest
- Not entirely correct.
- Completely irrelevant: the shake-down was executed buy the three amigos. They are the ones, who are aware of quid prop quo intention. And Sondland, after some several tries to cover-up, finally admitted the quid prop quo.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
I don’t think corruption means what you think it means:
Corruption is a form of dishonesty or criminal activity undertaken by a person or organization entrusted with a position of authority, often to acquire illicit benefit, or, abuse of entrusted power for one’s private gain.
What benefit or personal gain did the three people you mentioned get?
Despicable? Wow, I can’t wait to hear how you describe the plot to extort political gain for the President.
Oh, you’re saying elected officials are untrustworthy? Got it. Where’s your proof? And, yeah, you got me. Those witnesses definitely were not on board the administration’s policy of shaking down governments for political gain.
Completely correct. Not a single one had evidence of a quid pro quo.JonNC:
- Not entirely correct.
- Completely irrelevant: the shake-down was executed buy the three amigos. They are the ones, who are aware of quid prop quo intention. And Sondland, after some several tries to cover-up, finally admitted the quid prop quo.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One of the problems right now is that the public has no information on just how deep it runs. Yes, McCabe, Comey, Strzok, Page were all using their offices for political purposes and apparently lying to the FISA court. But those people were the “top of the line” at the FBI. How many more under them are no better? Hopefully the IG has turned over all the rocks and exposed all the scorpions. I guess we’ll see.
A perfect description, though incomplete, of the three I mentioned. There are more in the DOJ - Ohr, McCabe, Lynch.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
You don’t trust Trump, so why should I trust Schiff? So far in this star chamber proceeding, Schiff has deceived the public twice in his statements. But whatever.
The most notable feature of the Schiff debacle to date is the fact that the bureaucrat witnesses were NOT able to swear that the administration “had a policy of shaking down governments for political gain”. Like the leftists on this board, many clearly WANTED to think it and so they convinced themselves and each other of it. But not a one so far has had any real evidence.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Yes, I exaggerated. It was only one country we have proof was being shaken down.
Do you really think I want to see proof, on national television, that our President is dishonest and abusing his office for personal political gain? I do not. I want a President who doesn’t act corruptly.
I want to see the truth, and I want people on the right to be willing to concede that the President did the things that the witnesses testified to.
Frankly, the impeachment mess has moved from “Did the President do it” to “Is this impeachable”. I think the “Did the President do it” has been proven.
D
dvdjs
Guest
So what?
It is strange, and arguably revealing, that such a meaningless, straw-man argument is presented as though it were meaningful. Witnesses testify to what they, individually, know. The attorneys, put these pieces of testimony together for those asked to judge. It is not incumbent on each an every witness to provide all of the evidence. It is not incumbent on each an every one to pronounce guilt,m in fact it is ultra viris for them to do so.
The people that you mention saw the unfolding of the nefarious plan. There was clar and compelling testimony that the professional diplomats were being undermined to make way for the three amigo’s drug deal. And one of the amigo testified clearly that there was a quid prop quo.
Really, grasping at straws just shows how weak Trump’s case is.
Last edited:
X
Xystus
Guest
That is what Trump has been accused of… a quid pro quo. it seems relevant that, as JonNC pointed out, that nobody had evidence of oneJonNC:
So what?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
No, it isn’t. He is going to be accused of bribery or extortion. Maybe attempted bribery.
D
dvdjs
Guest
No. He mentioned Bishop and Kent and Yovanovitch and other as only presenting that “they didn’t like the policy, didn’t like that they were not involved/ in charge, or Trump hurt their feelings.” Even allowing for the sake of argument that that is an accurate statement, the testimony from Sondland was clear on the matter quid pro quo.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Now that an sought-after investigation has been announced, perhaps bribery…
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
This itself is more than an exaggeration. It’s just untrue. No actual proof of a “quid pro quo” or “bribery” or whatever Pelosi wants to call it today has been offered. Opinions, presumptions, “heard it from a guy who heard it from a guy”, yes. Real evidence, no. Contrary evidence? Well, the statements of the only people who mattered, Trump and Zelensky.
That’s exceptional. The Democrats would like it so much people like Schiff are willing to falsify it.
Not one of them actually knew, though. Why should anybody accept the hearsay or outright presumptions of people, many of whom are Trump’s political enemies? Don’t even need witnesses for that. Schiff alone can invent facts and then excuse them as “parody” when the text comes out and is totally different.
Not a single witness has testified that he/she heard either of the parties; Trump or Zelensky, negotiate a quid pro quo. Not one. There’s no proof at all. Why do you believe Democrat political opinions when you claim not to be one?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
It makes no difference what the “formal” charge is. The Democrats were determined to impeach on some ground when Trump was elected. So they got a fake “whistleblower” to tell Schiff something neither of them will testify to, and based a wasteful hearing on that. They have nothing but their own votes, but they do have those.
It’s really disgraceful. But it will remain to be seen what the real investigations show and the real testimony is, and it will remain to be seen what the voters think of it. Trump won’t be convicted in the Senate, and everybody knows that. This is Democrat political ads paid for by the taxpayers and the Democrat media sponsors.
X
Xystus
Guest
Yes, it actually is. that is what the Democrats were accusing him of.
I agree, if there are any official charges then it will be bribery. after all, that is the word that focused grouped the best.
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Do you think that is how bribery cases are proven?
Ze: “Okay, let me be getting this straight. If I want all the money I have to be investigating this Joe Biden guy?”.
Trump: “No, I keep saying this. Just announce you’re investigating Biden, you don’t have to actually investigate”
Ze: “You are making no sense. Do you want to know if Biden is corrupt?”
Trump: “No, I just want the American voters to think he’s corrupt”
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Stunning isn’t it? How quick.y those invested in having to believe this nonsense are ready to pick up the latest narrative and repeat it,bribery,extortion.Twilight Zone mentality
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Probably most are. The person being bribed has to know what’s expected of him and what is to receive. As of the July 25 phone call, there is no evidence at all that Trump communicated either thing or that Zelensky understood it that way. The only evidence is to the contrary.
Accusers have the burden of proof. What is your proof that Trump and Zelensky lied about it?
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Focusing on the phone call alone is not enough. There were meetings and other phone calls. Bribery. They knew what was going on. Didn’t Bolton refer to it as “that drug deal”? Everyone know.
- Status