VakAttack Posted March 26 Author Posted March 26 11 minutes ago, mspart said: That their impeachments were farces? mspart Oh. Trump: No. Clinton: I was 15, but looking back, sort of. Separate from that, he's a terrible person. Johnson: I was -115. yeah, I kind of think this one was a farce.
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 26 Posted March 26 On 3/25/2024 at 9:20 AM, JimmyBT said: Ummmmm you may want to check into the many liberals that called trump an illegitimate President. Hillary, Jimmy Carter, Bernie Samders, Maxine Waters, Nadler, Lewis all claimed he wasn’t legit due to voter suppression and Russia Russia Russia. Lewis wouldn’t even attend the inauguration. Hillary claims that Trump rigged things to win. Typical winger memory. And they were wrong about it. Did Russia interfere with the election? Yes. Did 45's campaign help to facilitate it? Maybe but hasn't been proven to enough of an extent to bring charges. Were they whining a bit because of the surprise swing? Probably. I think the majority of the country that voted for someone else did too. Then more people voted against 45 the next time. I'm guessing that trend will continue. Did members of the campaign or DNC leadership try to muddy the water with fake electors? Nope, sure didn't.
mspart Posted March 26 Posted March 26 23 minutes ago, ThreePointTakedown said: And they were wrong about it. Did Russia interfere with the election? Yes. Did 45's campaign help to facilitate it? Maybe but hasn't been proven to enough of an extent to bring charges. Were they whining a bit because of the surprise swing? Probably. I think the majority of the country that voted for someone else did too. Then more people voted against 45 the next time. I'm guessing that trend will continue. Did members of the campaign or DNC leadership try to muddy the water with fake electors? Nope, sure didn't. To the first bolded statement - Mueller found no evidence of collusion. Period, end of story. To the second - Maybe they didn't but JFK did. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186 mspart 1
mspart Posted March 26 Posted March 26 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: Oh. Trump: No. Clinton: I was 15, but looking back, sort of. Separate from that, he's a terrible person. Johnson: I was -115. yeah, I kind of think this one was a farce. That's what I figured. Completely partisan and predictable. I threw in Johnson as a joke figuring you weren't there at the time. I assume that was a good guess. Turns out all were farces because none got convicted. mspart 1 1
VakAttack Posted March 26 Author Posted March 26 3 minutes ago, mspart said: That's what I figured. Completely partisan and predictable. I threw in Johnson as a joke figuring you weren't there at the time. I assume that was a good guess. Turns out all were farces because none got convicted. mspart LOL. You asked a question, I answered. They are all based on their own unique situations and not tied to each other in any way, so why should my opinion of them be all the same? Being acquitted doesn't make it a farce.
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 26 Posted March 26 28 minutes ago, mspart said: To the first bolded statement - Mueller found no evidence of collusion. Period, end of story. To the second - Maybe they didn't but JFK did. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/1960-electoral-college-certificates-false-trump-electors-00006186 mspart Manfort gives campaign and polling data to Kilimnek. From AP Article. 'A key episode examined by Mueller involved Manafort’s decision to share campaign polling data with Kilimnik — something prosecutors say Manafort lied about when questioned. Investigators scrutinized a series of secretive encounters between the men, including one in August 2016 at the Grand Havana Club in New York. There, according to statements provided by Mueller, Manafort briefed Kilimnik on internal campaign data and messaging and they discussed battleground states. The exchange of polling data was an eye-catching data point, especially since it suggested Russia could have exploited such inside information to target influence campaigns aimed at boosting Trump’s election bid in 2016. But Mueller’s team said it couldn’t “reliably determine” Manafort’s purpose in sharing it, nor assess what Kilimnik may have done with it — in part due to questions over Manafort’s credibility. The Senate committee also came up empty, though its report drew attention for its characterization of Kilimnik as a Russian intelligence officer.' Not no evidence. Just couldn't question Kilimnik and Manafort is a known liar. Definitely hired the best!
mspart Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Johnson party affiliation doesn't matter. Clinton - D Trump - R Majorkas - D Yes very predictable. I just wondered where you draw the line. It is apparently at the political divide of R and D. You could tell me I'm wrong but I'm guessing you don't think Fani should be booted from the prosecution in GA and you think Letitia James' conduct laughing at Trump via social media after the Engoran decision is totally acceptable. On the other hand, investigation into Hunter is wrong and is a farce. And any of the things found that point to Joe are equally farcical. I would expect as a lawyer you would find their conduct disgraceful and unprofessional. I really hope that's the way you feel but because it involves Trump, I have my reservations. I would love to be proved wrong. The charges on Hunter are real and he admits to most all of them in his book. All has been quiet after Bobulinski testified last week (without HB who wanted his public hearing but did not show up) because why? He said things that are not helpful to the Biden cause. So no real mainstream media coverage of that. What he said was blistering and he had the receipts to prove what he said. But still I'm sure you think it is a farce because of who Hunter is, and not what he has, of his own accord, admittedly done. mspart 3
VakAttack Posted March 26 Author Posted March 26 7 minutes ago, mspart said: Johnson party affiliation doesn't matter. Clinton - D Trump - R Majorkas - D Yes very predictable. I just wondered where you draw the line. It is apparently at the political divide of R and D. Or it's just the factual divide. Quote You could tell me I'm wrong but I'm guessing you don't think Fani should be booted from the prosecution in GA and you think Letitia James' conduct laughing at Trump via social media after the Engoran decision is totally acceptable. I don't think Fani Willis should be removed from the prosecution, it's an incredibly high bar to do something like that. Letitia James laughing at Trump on social media, if it happened, would probably not be the way I would have done things as an elected official, but it's a bit rich for conservatives to complain about, and is not a violation of any law I know of. Quote On the other hand, investigation into Hunter is wrong and is a farce. And any of the things found that point to Joe are equally farcical. I would expect as a lawyer you would find their conduct disgraceful and unprofessional. I really hope that's the way you feel but because it involves Trump, I have my reservations. I would love to be proved wrong. Who said the investigation into Hunter is a farce? The fact that Congress is involving themselves in a fruitless attempt to tie it to Joe Biden is a farce, because as has been shown repeatedly, they have no evidence. Quote The charges on Hunter are real and he admits to most all of them in his book. All has been quiet after Bobulinski testified last week (without HB who wanted his public hearing but did not show up) because why? He said things that are not helpful to the Biden cause. So no real mainstream media coverage of that. What he said was blistering and he had the receipts to prove what he said. But still I'm sure you think it is a farce because of who Hunter is, and not what he has, of his own accord, admittedly done. mspart I watched every moment of Bobulinski's testimony. He had no receipts, and he looked like a fool with an axe to grind. You keep trying to paint me as some Hunter Biden defender, and keep trying to shift the argument away from where we started. The Rs launched this impeachment inquiry. They have nothing, and now they're tucking their tails between their legs and running away, then you and others are trying to hide behind rhetoric about it being due to a partisan divide/DOA when that literally didn't stop the same people from impeaching Mayorkas just over a month ago. So why was it not partisan enough to stop the impeachment vote last month, but this month they couldn't possibly? Because they have nothing. Here it is being illustrated by a D representative quite nicely.
mspart Posted March 26 Posted March 26 Again, as I said, you see these things politically. You just proved it. mspart
VakAttack Posted March 26 Author Posted March 26 12 minutes ago, mspart said: Again, as I said, you see these things politically. You just proved it. mspart How did I prove it?
VakAttack Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 12 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: He'll never say it but Vak is partisan as they come Much like the House Republicans, you and others hurl accusations without evidence, accusations that are really admissions. Then, when pressed for evidence, you just claim it's self-evident.
jross Posted March 27 Posted March 27 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: How did I prove it? "Its not Rs vs Ds, it is facts" is something you roughly said. Meanwhile what you criticise vs support is often Rs vs Ds down the line. You did this for the Nth time in the last few posts.
Paul158 Posted March 27 Posted March 27 21 minutes ago, Bigbrog said: He'll never say it but Vak is partisan as they come Big time.!!!!
Offthemat Posted March 27 Posted March 27 2 hours ago, VakAttack said: How did I prove it? With nearly every thread you start and post you make in this section. 5
VakAttack Posted March 27 Author Posted March 27 (edited) There you go. The presumption being that disagreeing with you makes me partisan. Does that mean you're all partisans as well in your own minds? Either way, your feelings are not evidence, and just preclude the possibility that I, a former die-hard Republican, have thought about topics and changed my mind. Edited March 27 by VakAttack 2
jross Posted March 27 Posted March 27 It is not about disagreement and a changed mind. We all lean different ways on topics. When any of us refuse to criticize the left/right that deserves it... that there is the partisan conflict. Tribalism. 1
Offthemat Posted March 27 Posted March 27 9 hours ago, VakAttack said: There you go. The presumption being that disagreeing with you makes me partisan. Does that mean you're all partisans as well in your own minds? Either way, your feelings are not evidence, and just preclude the possibility that I, a former die-hard Republican, have thought about topics and changed my mind. How convincing.
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 27 Posted March 27 10 hours ago, Bigbrog said: He'll never say it but Vak is partisan as they come How do you define partisan? If we all have a common understanding maybe we can figure it out.
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 27 Posted March 27 8 hours ago, jross said: It is not about disagreement and a changed mind. We all lean different ways on topics. When any of us refuse to criticize the left/right that deserves it... that there is the partisan conflict. Tribalism. Correct me if I'm wrong. But how you worded it makes me feel that your opinion of the reason someone 'deserves it' should just be trusted as true?
ThreePointTakedown Posted March 27 Posted March 27 10 hours ago, jross said: "Its not Rs vs Ds, it is facts" is something you roughly said. Meanwhile what you criticise vs support is often Rs vs Ds down the line. You did this for the Nth time in the last few posts. Can you defend yourself from this same argument?
Offthemat Posted March 30 Posted March 30 Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter (below) to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. President Biden is not expected to testify. However, the media should be interested in his answering the questions presented by the Committee. It is now clear that the President lied during his campaign and during his presidency on his lack of knowledge of his son’s business activities as well as his denial of any money gained from China. Yet, the White House responded, again, with mockery — a sense of impunity that only exists due to an enabling media. Chairman Comer reduces the past testimony and evidence acquired by the Committee in the corruption scandal. In the last hearing, Democratic members simply refused to acknowledge that evidence. There was a bizarre disconnect as members mocked the witnesses for not supplying evidence of the President’s knowledge or involvement. They then did so and the members declared that there was no evidence. Various members also misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in stating there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take. Now, the Committee has laid out the considerable evidence showing that the President had lied, knowingly and repeatedly. Interspersed with specific evidentiary findings, the Committee presents ten questions that the President should be able to answer directly and unequivocally: Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov? Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you? Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017? In response, the White House Counsel’s office again responded with mockery and taunting. I have previously discussed (including in my testimony in the Biden hearing) how the role of the White House staff in these denials can raise serious questions under the impeachment inquiry. That has not deterred White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams, who has been previously accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in heavy-handed treatment of the media. Sams responded to the letter: “LOL. Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.” The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics. Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something. Here is the letter: 2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/29/say-it-aint-so-joe-the-house-formally-invites-president-biden-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry/ 1
JimmyBT Posted March 31 Posted March 31 (edited) 7 hours ago, Offthemat said: Say It Ain’t So, Joe: The House Formally Invites President Biden to Testify in Impeachment Inquiry House Oversight Committee chairman James Comer has sent a seven-page letter (below) to invite President Joe Biden to testify in the Republican impeachment inquiry. The letter is the latest, and best, reduction of the glaring contradictions in the President’s past statements on his family’s well-documented influence peddling operation. President Biden is not expected to testify. However, the media should be interested in his answering the questions presented by the Committee. It is now clear that the President lied during his campaign and during his presidency on his lack of knowledge of his son’s business activities as well as his denial of any money gained from China. Yet, the White House responded, again, with mockery — a sense of impunity that only exists due to an enabling media. Chairman Comer reduces the past testimony and evidence acquired by the Committee in the corruption scandal. In the last hearing, Democratic members simply refused to acknowledge that evidence. There was a bizarre disconnect as members mocked the witnesses for not supplying evidence of the President’s knowledge or involvement. They then did so and the members declared that there was no evidence. Various members also misrepresented my earlier testimony during the hearing on the basis for the impeachment inquiry. Members like Rep. Jamie Raskin (D., Md.) stated that I joined other witnesses in stating there was nothing that could remotely be impeachable in these allegations. That is demonstrably untrue. My testimony stated the opposite. I refused to pre-judge the evidence, but stated that there was ample basis for the inquiry and laid out various impeachable offenses that could be brought if ultimately supported by evidence. I also discussed those potential offenses in columns. The purpose of the hearing was not to declare an impeachment on the first day of the inquiry. Unlike the two prior impeachments by many of these same Democratic members, this impeachment inquiry sought to create a record of evidence and testimony to support any action that the House might take. Now, the Committee has laid out the considerable evidence showing that the President had lied, knowingly and repeatedly. Interspersed with specific evidentiary findings, the Committee presents ten questions that the President should be able to answer directly and unequivocally: Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Jonathan Li of Bohai Industrial Fund and/or Bohai Harvest Rosemont? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Ye Jianming of CEFC? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Henry Zhao of the Harvest Fund? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Vadym Pozharskyi of Burisma Holdings? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Mykola Zlochevsky of Burisma Holdings? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Kenes Rakishev of Novatus Holding? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yelena Baturina? Have you met, spoken to, or otherwise interacted with Yuriy Luzhkov? Did you ever ask your brother James Biden about the source of the funds he used to pay or repay you? Did Eric Schwerin have insight into all your bank accounts until December 2017? In response, the White House Counsel’s office again responded with mockery and taunting. I have previously discussed (including in my testimony in the Biden hearing) how the role of the White House staff in these denials can raise serious questions under the impeachment inquiry. That has not deterred White House Counsel spokesperson Ian Sams, who has been previously accused of misrepresenting facts and engaging in heavy-handed treatment of the media. Sams responded to the letter: “LOL. Comer knows 20+ witnesses have testified that POTUS did nothing wrong. He knows that the hundreds of thousands of pages of records he’s received have refuted his false allegations. This is a sad stunt at the end of a dead impeachment. Call it a day, pal.” The involvement of a member of the White House Counsel’s staff issuing such a disrespectful and taunting message would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Yet, the media has enabled such denial and deflection by showing no interest in the answers to any of these questions. It is part of the genius of the Biden management of this scandal. The White House quickly got reporters to buy into the illusion, making any later recognition impossible for these reporters. It is Houdini’s disappearing elephant trick applied to politics. Even if most of the media refuses to demand answers, the public has a right to hear directly from the President on these specific questions. President Biden can still deny all of this countervailing evidence and “say it ain’t so,” but he should say something. Here is the letter: 2024-03-28-CJC-letter-to-JRB https://jonathanturley.org/2024/03/29/say-it-aint-so-joe-the-house-formally-invites-president-biden-to-testify-in-impeachment-inquiry/ Mush brain lied ??????? That’s Hysterical Edited March 31 by JimmyBT Add
Dylan Greenstein Northfield Mt. Herman, Massachusetts Class of 2025 Committed to Harvard Projected Weight: 285
Isabella Marie Gonzales Clovis East, California Class of 2025 Committed to Iowa (Women) Projected Weight: 117, 124
Maeve Witte Freehold Township, New Jersey Class of 2025 Committed to Lock Haven (Women) Projected Weight: 117
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now