Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Austin Ellen · 11-02-2019, 10:10 AM

-

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have 2 rather simple questions:

1. Should the allegations made by the whistle-blower not be investigated? Yes. If it's is a creditable allegation. Hearsay doesn't count.

2. IF, and I stress the word "IF", President Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to launch investigations that he believed would help him in the 2020 election by withholding funds allocated to the Ukraine by Congress, would you consider this to be a violation of his oath of office? Nope. Not in this case. Due to the fact that funds were not withheld. Plus any information that they had on Biden would be beneficial to America since Biden is running for POTUS.

Not looking for arguments. If anyone answers "YES" and "NO", I have no problem with those responses. If anyone wants to expound on their responses, feel free to do so.

Whisky_1 · 11-02-2019, 10:37 AM

Ms Ellen,

Nothing is simple in American politics even your political questions here:

1. No-I would not consider the whistleblowing Army Officer's testimony hearsay. Nor, would I consider anything that 45 utters truthful.

2. Yes-While foreign policy is the the exclusive domain of a sitting President his actions must still be within his constitutional powers. Please apply your logic and rational including the assessment of the American Intelligence Community that Russia interfered in American diplomatic processes giving 45 an unfair advantage and the obvious financial conflicts of interest with hostile foreign nations. Your previous statement in previous 45 threads that "you were aware of these facts but did not care" makes this comment seem disingenuous.

Notice that the American Intelligence Community did not make any adverse assertions against Biden in the Ukraine matter.

We should continue this parley on neutral ground over a meal and lots of strong cocktails made with your favorite Patron mixer. Your favorite Steakhouse is my Consulate.

WTF · 11-02-2019, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

SpeedRacerXXX:
I have 2 rather simple questions:

1. Should the allegations made by the whistle-blower not be investigated? Yes. If it's is a creditable allegation. Hearsay doesn't count.

So if you tell me there is a dead body in room such and such and I tell the police what you told me....they should not go check and see if there is a dead body because you say that is hearsay? They can only talk to the people who saw it?

2. IF, and I stress the word "IF", President Trump sought to pressure the Ukrainian government to launch investigations that he believed would help him in the 2020 election by withholding funds allocated to the Ukraine by Congress, would you consider this to be a violation of his oath of office? Nope. Not in this case. Due to the fact that funds were not withheld. Plus any information that they had on Biden would be beneficial to America since Biden is running for POTUS.
Ellen , Funds were released after Trump was made aware of the whistleblower. Your theory of a bank robber being able to give back the money after getting caught is interesting though.. "Your Honor he didn't really rob a bank because he gave back the money after police found out he robbed the bank."

So on Sept 9th the WH knew it was caught (whistleblower files complaint) and on Sept 11th the WH released the funds. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Not looking for arguments. If anyone answers "YES" and "NO", I have no problem with those responses. If anyone wants to expound on their responses, feel free to do so.

-

I suppose you believe this too...

LexusLover · 11-02-2019, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whisky_1

2. Yes-While foreign policy is the the exclusive domain of a sitting President his actions must still be within his constitutional powers.

Name one thing he's done in "foreign policy" that is outside of his "constitutional powers"! As difficult as it may be for you, please be specific with a close month and year along with the specific facts of the actions he took in that month and year. Thank you!

A reference of a FACTUAL NEWS STORY would be helpful as well as opposed to an OP-Ed piece making up some bullshit about the FACTS .... and then speculating as to what may have happened.

I B Hankering · 11-02-2019, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

You're a "#Grubered" moron. You neither explained how persona non grata got her Visa or refuted that persona non grata was both given a Visa, and meet with Team hildebeest before and after the Tower meeting. If meeting with persona non grata was a crime, then Team hildebeest and Team Odumbo are guilty of that crime three times over.

WTF · 11-02-2019, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Name one thing he's done in "foreign policy" that is outside of his "constitutional powers"! As difficult as it may be for you, please be specific with a close month and year along with the specific facts of the actions he took in that month and year. Thank you!

.

uly of this year....Made a dubious call to Ukraine and will probably get impeached over his ignorance in doing so. As he very well should.

lustylad · 11-02-2019, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Spying on a political campaign is a big deal. When it's being done openly and brazenly by anybody with the help of a foreign adversary, it is necessary for our country to keep track of it...

So you're ok with it as long as it's done in a secretive, clandestine manner (assisted by foreign intelligence services) as Brennan and Comey did? Then it's NOT necessary for us to keep track of it?

You're still not making sense.

lustylad · 11-02-2019, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, there is no proof that anyone has yet provided that indicates that Clinton in any way asked for FAKE information.

Why pay for fake information? Anyone can make up fake information.

Hahahaha... what's your point?

Is it stupider for hildebeest to have expected Putin to furnish accurate information? Or to ask him for info at all knowing it would be fake?

Which is stupider? Take your pick, speedy!

SpeedRacerXXX · 11-02-2019, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

Hahahaha... what's your point?

Is it stupider for hildebeest to expect Putin to furnish accurate information? Or to ask him for info at all knowing it will be fake?

Take your pick, speedy!

Again, there is no evidence to support the accusation that Clinton asked for FAKE information.

Any response to my 2 questions?

bambino · 11-02-2019, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, there is no evidence to support the accusation that Clinton asked for FAKE information.

Any response to my 2 questions?

Prove that she didn’t ask for it. She bought and paid for the Steele Dossie. Even Steele can’t confirm any truth to it. Do you need more evidence?

LexusLover · 11-02-2019, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Again, there is no proof that anyone has yet provided that indicates that Clinton in any way asked for FAKE information.

Why pay for fake information? Anyone can make up fake information.

Does it matter to you that Clinton HERSELF didn't ask someone to "make up fake information"? Or is that how you wish to word the statement to provide yourself with "cover" and an "out"?

If someone on her behalf found some bullshit on Trump and she authorized the bullshit to be released to the HUNGRY anti-Trump media without verifying the accuracy, reliability, and authenticity of the vile statements about Trump .... then it really doesn't make any difference that she didn't ask someone to fabricated the bullshit, now does it?

Is that the kind of person you want to be POTUS? Recklessly publishes and/or causes to be published fabricated information?

Her former boss was bad enough ....

eccieuser9500 · 11-02-2019, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lustylad

So you're ok with it as long as it's done in a secretive, clandestine manner (assisted by foreign intelligence services) as Brennan and Comey did? Then it's NOT necessary for us to keep track of it?

You're still not making sense.

Did I say I was okay with it?

Basic analogy:

I'm playing, or coaching, for the Steelers all off season just before opening game. No contracts. Or at least until game one. Then suddenly I go to work for the Cowboys.

If I'm doing it for myself or the Cowboys, then I'm a peice of shit low life, unethical scoundrel. Is that illegal? No. Highly Questionable? Sí! If I'm doing with the help of the NFL commissioner, the commissioner of the XFL, indoor league, or a league in another country, then . . . .

See where I'm going with this? It's said if your not cheating, your not trying. I wholly disagree. If you're cheating, then you already know you can't win.

Now do you understand? Does it make better sense? Unethical versus Illegal. Bribery and treason.

Question: does the POTUS take his oath seriously? (Should I start another thread?)

The_Waco_Kid · 11-02-2019, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You should actually take the time to read and UNDERSTAND the posts of others. I clearly stated that Clinton may have paid for information but I also stated there is no proof she asked for FAKE information.

"may" have paid? now who needs to understand. no Clinton bucks .. no Steele report. that is fact. Clinton didn't care if it was fake or not, as long as it was something she could use. the info from Russians that Steele knew from his days at MI6 fed him false info. not you but i find it amusing that several posters here believe the pee tape exists and Putin is holding it over Trump's head.

the Steele dossier reads like what it is .. a 4th rate pulp fiction spy novel. you could have culled better material from Ian Fleming.

SpeedRacerXXX · 11-02-2019, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bambino

Prove that she didn’t ask for it. She bought and paid for the Steele Dossie. Even Steele can’t confirm any truth to it. Do you need more evidence?

The burden of proof in our legal system is on the accuser, not the accused, meaning until Clinton is proven guilty, she is innocent. Same rule of law applies to Trump and the impeachment hearings. Trump doesn't have to prove anything. He is innocent until proven guilty.

SpeedRacerXXX · 11-02-2019, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

"may" have paid? now who needs to understand. no Clinton bucks .. no Steele report. that is fact. Clinton didn't care if it was fake or not, as long as it was something she could use. the info from Russians that Steele knew from his days at MI6 fed him false info. not you but i find it amusing that several posters here believe the pee tape exists and Putin is holding it over Trump's head.

the Steele dossier reads like what it is .. a 4th rate pulp fiction spy novel. you could have culled better material from Ian Fleming.

And once again I have to ask -- what proof do you have to back up your statement that "Clinton didn't care if it was fake or not, as long as it was something she could use."

You've got nothing but your opinion.