Page 89 of 89 FirstFirst ... 3979878889
Results 881 to 888 of 888

Thread: List of Trump's crimes?

  1. #881
    tWebber firstfloor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    invalid value
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4,488
    Amen (Given)
    23
    Amen (Received)
    412
    Being a “dotard”.
    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
    “You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ― Anne Lamott
    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell

  2. #882
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,058
    Amen (Given)
    3587
    Amen (Received)
    808
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    You might enjoy Turley's review of the impeachment circus where they had the three liberal hacks pushing hard for impeachment, under the guise of being there as constitutional experts.

    Turley: Democrats offering passion over proof in Trump impeachment
    Assuming he's actually literate, this would be a good one for JimL to visit. It addresses the dishonest talking points about Turley contradicting his prior positions.
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  3. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  4. #883
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,320
    Amen (Given)
    375
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I did read the article. It's just more hearsay. Is this Zerkal gal speaking based on direct knowledge from statements made to her by Zelensky himself, or is she pulling a Sondland and making claims based on presumption?
    MM dictionary: hearsay, anything anyone witnessed that implicates Donald Trump.

    If you in fact read that article and are dismissing the clear implications as regards the inanity of placing any sort of credence on Zekenski's claims of 'no pressure', then you show yourself incapable of objective thought regarding this Presidents actions as they relate to the situation with Ukraine that has led to this impeachment inquiry.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; Today at 06:45 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

  5. #884
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    57,163
    Amen (Given)
    12408
    Amen (Received)
    26582
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    Assuming he's actually literate, this would be a good one for JimL to visit. It addresses the dishonest talking points about Turley contradicting his prior positions.
    He was there to get beat up - the other three were there to push full speed ahead for impeachment.
    DuckDuckGo - Privacy Simplified

  6. #885
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,329
    Amen (Given)
    5882
    Amen (Received)
    6716
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    Abuse of power comes down to whether the aid was withheld in order to make Zelensky announce the investigation and on this I think the case is strong. The fact that aid was withheld and the fact Sonderland communicated that it was conditioned on the announcements to the Ukrainians is enough to make it more likely than not especially considering the absence of a valid defence.
    The two facts against are that Sondland admitted that he was acting on his own presumption, and that when he spoke to the President directly was emphatically told there was to be no quid pro quo.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  7. #886
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,329
    Amen (Given)
    5882
    Amen (Received)
    6716
    Quote Originally Posted by oxmixmudd View Post
    MM dictionary: hearsay, anything anyone witnessed that implicates Donald Trump.

    If you in fact read that article and are dismissing the clear implications as regards the inanity of placing any sort of credence on Zekenski's claims of 'no pressure', then you show yourself incapable of objective thought regarding this Presidents actions as they relate to the situation with Ukraine that has led to this impeachment inquiry.
    I can only assume based on this tap dance of an answer that you recognize that Zerkal is not speaking based on direct knowledge of statements made by Zelinsky.

    And there's still the hole in you theory that Zelinsky is so afraid of Trump he's willing to lie about not being pressured, but not so afraid that he would agree to investigate Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal.

    I think, then, that when Zelinsky says he wasn't pressured, he is more than likely telling the truth.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  8. #887
    tWebber Mountain Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    United States
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    18,329
    Amen (Given)
    5882
    Amen (Received)
    6716
    Quote Originally Posted by Watermelon View Post
    You’re killing me Mountain Man! People actually pay me money to do the thing you just dismissed! The jurisprudence behind presumption of innocence is clear on basing its application on the severity of the remedy at stake. Basically if you’re going to kill someone for a crime then just make sure they really did it.

    That’s why it’s not always applicable in civil cases because there are situations where people need to explain themselves. If the reason behind the use of a special power (authority to do certain acts, not available to general public)is the allegation then it can only be weighed against their defense otherwise it would be impossible to prove to any standard.

    It’s like if you ask someone why they drove a car and they didn’t answer. They fact finder knows why people drive cars and whether the allegations are credible. If you ask a director why certain funds were transferred in a certain way and they didn’t answer then the fact finder can only assume the allegations as true because they don’t know what the other options are.
    The thing is, the President does have some flexibility when it comes to the timing of the dispersement of funds, and he is under no obligation to explain himself so long as the funds are dispersed prior to the fiscal year's end. It's not like a company accountant who refuses to explain the improper withdrawal of money. Everything Trump did with regards to the military aid is perfectly legal. The burden of proof, then, is on those making the accusation that it was somehow improper even if it wasn't illegal.
    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
    Than a fool in the eyes of God


    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

  9. #888
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Maryland
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,320
    Amen (Given)
    375
    Amen (Received)
    1684
    Quote Originally Posted by Mountain Man View Post
    I can only assume based on this tap dance of an answer that you recognize that Zerkal is not speaking based on direct knowledge of statements made by Zelinsky.

    And there's still the hole in you theory that Zelinsky is so afraid of Trump he's willing to lie about not being pressured, but not so afraid that he would agree to investigate Quid Pro Joe's dirty deal.

    I think, then, that when Zelinsky says he wasn't pressured, he is more than likely telling the truth.
    There was no tap dance. You dismiss evidence out of hand if they are telling what they saw and heard by calling it hearsay. You're the one dancing.

    As for 'the hole in my theory', she is a first hand witness as to the tightrope they are walking and how measures were taken to avoid falling off said tightrope. Specifically regarding what she could and could not discuss regarding what she knew.
    Last edited by oxmixmudd; Today at 11:16 AM.
    He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

    "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •