Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HipKat

Now That the Cat is Out Of The Bag

Recommended Posts

Gordon Sondlan recanted his original testimony today and made it quite clear that not only was there a Qui Pro Quo, but he was tasked with executing it at the direction of Guiliani who was dispatched by Trump to the Ukraine to urge the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in order to receiver the tax payer funded, legally dispatched military aide.

That Trump illegally withheld the aid until that investigation was assured. What those of us that aren't supportive of this corrupt president already k new was true has now been verified by a Trump supporter, donor and apologist

So for you Trumpsters that keep insisting there's no evidence of a Quid Pro Quo, I just wonder, who are you trying to convince, us or yourselves?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not concerned at all, this guy already painted himself as a liar. By the way, Conservatism is the new Punk Rock - you might wanna change your avatar.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether there was a Quid Pro Quo is no longer a question.  The big question now is whether the Senate believes that it's an acceptable practice for the President to use US foreign policy for political gains.  If they decide "Yes", then they will have to live with their decision when the next administration comes in to office.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, HipKat said:

Gordon Sondlan recanted his original testimony today and made it quite clear that not only was there a Qui Pro Quo, but he was tasked with executing it at the direction of Guiliani who was dispatched by Trump to the Ukraine to urge the Ukraine to investigate the Bidens in order to receiver the tax payer funded, legally dispatched military aide.

That Trump illegally withheld the aid until that investigation was assured. What those of us that aren't supportive of this corrupt president already k new was true has now been verified by a Trump supporter, donor and apologist

So for you Trumpsters that keep insisting there's no evidence of a Quid Pro Quo, I just wonder, who are you trying to convince, us or yourselves?

Geez, guy, who do you filter your news through?  I watched the news last night too.  Why did I hear something entirely different?  Could it be I hear what I want to hear?  Okay.  Maybe that's true.  The problem is that holds true for you as well.  Enjoy the partisan witch hunt in the meantime!  LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Thebowflexbody said:

Geez, guy, who do you filter your news through?  I watched the news last night too.  Why did I hear something entirely different?  Could it be I hear what I want to hear?  Okay.  Maybe that's true.  The problem is that holds true for you as well.  Enjoy the partisan witch hunt in the meantime!  LOL

Because you watch Fox news and think that that’s actually the news. If you actually did a search on anything instead of just taking what they said at face value, even though you’re too stupid to realize it when it comes to politics, because you’re pretty good with football, but in politics y’all take their word over every other news source that disagrees with them so I don’t know where the fuck you got your information from but everybody knows on the planet now, what this guy testified to yesterday. And that makes six whose testimony was publicly released, and all corroborate the same thing. That doesn’t include close testimony that hasn’t been released to the public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Because you watch Fox news and think that that’s actually the news. If you actually did a search on anything instead of just taking what they said at face value, even though you’re too stupid to realize it when it comes to politics, because you’re pretty good with football, but in politics y’all take their word over every other news source that disagrees with them so I don’t know where the fuck you got your information from but everybody knows on the planet now, what this guy testified to yesterday. And that makes six whose testimony was publicly released, and all corroborate the same thing. That doesn’t include close testimony that hasn’t been released to the public.

You, on the other hand, have found the honest, agenda free news sources that no longer exist.  Truly remarkable!  I've been saying for a long time now that there is no "news" anymore.  It's ALL slanted opinion by both sides.  That said, there are far more liberal "news" sources than conservative ones.  Far more.  Do you deny that?  For every FOX, there's an ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post and on and on and on.  Those sources, my friend, are all very slanted and liberal.  Yet the left howls about pretty much the lone conservative voice out there other than Rush Limbaugh.  What they want is to control the message COMPLETELY and FOX makes that goal impossible.  Wake up, Hip.  You're being conned.  I suggest National Review as a good source of news.  Pretty conservative, but pretty fair.  They do not worship Trump by any means.  Check it out.  Seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Thebowflexbody said:

You, on the other hand, have found the honest, agenda free news sources that no longer exist.  Truly remarkable!  I've been saying for a long time now that there is no "news" anymore.  It's ALL slanted opinion by both sides.  That said, there are far more liberal "news" sources than conservative ones.  Far more.  Do you deny that?  For every FOX, there's an ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post and on and on and on.  Those sources, my friend, are all very slanted and liberal.  Yet the left howls about pretty much the lone conservative voice out there other than Rush Limbaugh.  What they want is to control the message COMPLETELY and FOX makes that goal impossible.  Wake up, Hip.  You're being conned.  I suggest National Review as a good source of news.  Pretty conservative, but pretty fair.  They do not worship Trump by any means.  Check it out.  Seriously.

And yes, the National Review does acknowledge the President crossed a line and asked for dirt on his political adversary: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-wrong-defense/ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thebowflexbody said:

You, on the other hand, have found the honest, agenda free news sources that no longer exist.  Truly remarkable!  I've been saying for a long time now that there is no "news" anymore.  It's ALL slanted opinion by both sides.  That said, there are far more liberal "news" sources than conservative ones.  Far more.  Do you deny that?  For every FOX, there's an ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post and on and on and on.  Those sources, my friend, are all very slanted and liberal.  Yet the left howls about pretty much the lone conservative voice out there other than Rush Limbaugh.  What they want is to control the message COMPLETELY and FOX makes that goal impossible.  Wake up, Hip.  You're being conned.  I suggest National Review as a good source of news.  Pretty conservative, but pretty fair.  They do not worship Trump by any means.  Check it out.  Seriously.

For every Fox, there are outlets that don't outright lie, you mean? You're standing in quicksand. There's nothing left to dispute. You're defending a man that has nothing left to defend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, foster said:

And yes, the National Review does acknowledge the President crossed a line and asked for dirt on his political adversary: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/11/the-wrong-defense/ 

He actually wasn't even an adversary since this investigation has been ongoing and blocked by the Dems since early 2015 when State Department aide George Kent questioned their business. I still propose that Biden is only running to take heat off of himself once it looked like he was in trouble. Look at the timeline:

April 25: In an interview with Fox News, Trump addresses the suggestion that Ukraine interfered in 2016. “I would imagine [Barr] would want to see this,” he says. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.”

The same day, Joe Biden announces his presidential campaign.

Coincidence? Probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, SackMan518 said:

He actually wasn't even an adversary since this investigation has been ongoing and blocked by the Dems since early 2015 when State Department aide George Kent questioned their business. I still propose that Biden is only running to take heat off of himself once it looked like he was in trouble. Look at the timeline:

April 25: In an interview with Fox News, Trump addresses the suggestion that Ukraine interfered in 2016. “I would imagine [Barr] would want to see this,” he says. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.”

The same day, Joe Biden announces his presidential campaign.

Coincidence? Probably not.

Except Ukraine didn't interfere in the elction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HipKat said:

For every Fox, there are outlets that don't outright lie, you mean? You're standing in quicksand. There's nothing left to dispute. You're defending a man that has nothing left to defend

You know what Hip?  I'm just going to accept the fact that our views are polar opposites.  Nothing out there is cut and dry or black and white.  Far from it.  I don't believe Trump is any kind of saint.  He's not.  But he is a horse of a different color for sure.  I'll take him any day over a Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.  Not even close.  He'll get my vote again.  The democrats make that easy.  Whatever happened to centrist democrats?  They sure aren't running for President.  That party is going socialist and I see that as disgusting.  Their views to me are dead wrong.  That said, I'm going to do my best to go easy on or eliminate the insults on threads like this.  I don't really believe you're a bad person or a moron, but I do think you're misled.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, HipKat said:

Except Ukraine didn't interfere in the elction

 

DOJ Reconfirms: Ukraine's Role in 2016 Election Interference is Being Investigated

"A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating," DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kopek released in a statement. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the dust settles, this will be another....

Hungry Food GIF

:niterider:

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Woody said:

When the dust settles, this will be another....

Hungry Food GIF

:niterider:

Of course.  Throwing noodles at the wall to see if they'll stick.  Big attempt of the week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

DOJ Reconfirms: Ukraine's Role in 2016 Election Interference is Being Investigated

"A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating," DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kopek released in a statement. 

Yeah dude, that AG Barr creating something where there is nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

He actually wasn't even an adversary since this investigation has been ongoing and blocked by the Dems since early 2015 when State Department aide George Kent questioned their business. I still propose that Biden is only running to take heat off of himself once it looked like he was in trouble. Look at the timeline:

April 25: In an interview with Fox News, Trump addresses the suggestion that Ukraine interfered in 2016. “I would imagine [Barr] would want to see this,” he says. “People have been saying this whole — the concept of Ukraine, they have been talking about it actually for a long time.”

The same day, Joe Biden announces his presidential campaign.

Coincidence? Probably not.

I was replying to TheBowflexbody as I was encouraged to view the National Review site and found they came to the same conclusion as others that Trump and his administration asked for dirt on a Political opponent in exchange for aid $$.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quid Pro Quo has been used as a political tool since Moses climbed down the mountain. The political arena is full of liars, cheats, and criminals. Nothing new here. EXCEPT we have a very unlikeable guy in the White House, that leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths. So, they want to pin ANYTHING on him, going from one thing to another. 
 

Trump’s Achilles heel is his mouth. His bombastic approach to his job doesn’t help him get anything done.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jc856 said:

Quid Pro Quo has been used as a political tool since Moses climbed down the mountain. The political arena is full of liars, cheats, and criminals. Nothing new here. EXCEPT we have a very unlikeable guy in the White House, that leaves a bad taste in some people’s mouths. So, they want to pin ANYTHING on him, going from one thing to another. 
 

Trump’s Achilles heel is his mouth. His bombastic approach to his job doesn’t help him get anything done.

Historically, it was used as in improve human rights practices in exchange for.... OR things that affect their country and their people. Not for personal pr political gain, which is what Trump did that violates the Constitution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Historically, it was used as in improve human rights practices in exchange for.... OR things that affect their country and their people. Not for personal pr political gain, which is what Trump did that violates the Constitution

Hmmmmm.......

D6406696-5AEA-4D4E-9622-8AD6227E952E.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HipKat said:

Historically, it was used as in improve human rights practices in exchange for.... OR things that affect their country and their people. Not for personal pr political gain, which is what Trump did that violates the Constitution

He hasn't violated the Constitution. What they're trying to hold over him is a bigger stretch than that Armstrong doll we had as kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SackMan518 said:

He hasn't violated the Constitution. What they're trying to hold over him is a bigger stretch than that Armstrong doll we had as kids.

Actually, he has and it's been explained over and over. Why don't you just be honest and say that you don't care that he has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Actually, he has and it's been explained over and over. Why don't you just be honest and say that you don't care that he has.

Give me a quick take on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

Give me a quick take on that.

Trump Didn’t Bribe Ukraine. It’s Actually Worse Than That.

If the Ukraine allegations are true, there are criminal consequences

Trump’s Ukraine Intervention May Violate FCPA, Arms Export Laws

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES: HERE ARE ALL THE WAYS THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF VIOLATING THE CONSTITUTION (old)

While President Barack Obama managed to make it through eight years in the White House with little more than an outlandish sniff of an idea of being impeached, President Donald Trump so far has been formally accused of an impeachable offense for every month of his presidency.

 

Representative Brad Sherman, July 12

Obstruction of Justice
Two months after Trump fired James Comey as FBI director, California Democrat Sherman became the first member to introduce an article of impeachment. The official reason given for the dismissal of Comey was dissatisfaction with his investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. However, Trump swiftly undermined that rationale when stating in an interview with NBC News that the Russia investigation, which Comey was leading, was very much on his mind. The article of impeachment had just one co-sponsor, Texas Representative Al Green, who would soon make his own move for impeachment.

Green, October 11

Inciting White Supremacy, Sexism, Bigotry, Hatred, Xenophobia, Race Baiting and Racism
Green had long been one Trump's fiercest critics, even before making official his efforts to remove the president. When unveiling articles of impeachment last month, he stressed his belief that the writers of the Constitution did not intend for a crime to have to be committed in order for a president to be removed from office. As evidence that Trump had fostered a climate of division and prejudice, Green cited comments calling a NFL protester an "SOB," his reaction to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, his bans on travelers from some Muslim-majority nations entering the U.S. and on transgender people serving in the military, as well as his unfounded claim that Obama wiretapped his phones during the 2016 campaign.

 

Associating the Majesty of the Presidency with causes Rooted in White Supremacy, Bigotry, Racism, Anti-Semitism, White Nationalism and Neo-Nazism
Green's second article of impeachment came as a reaction to Trump's controversial response to deadly violence at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in August, when a counterprotester was killed. Trump blamed "both sides" and added that there were "very fine people" in each faction.

Perfidy
The third impeachment article accused Trump of deceit in claiming that three million to five million people voted illegally in the 2016 election. Trump made the unsubstantiated claim after losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than three million votes. He subsequently set up a voter fraud commission to investigate. The commission itself was then investigated by the Government Accountability Office.

Encouraging Law Enforcement Officials to Violate the Constitutional Rights of Suspects in Their Care, Custody and Control
Green's final impeachment article centered on comments Trump made in a July address to law enforcement officials, in which he appeared to encourage police violence.

"When you see these towns and when you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just see them thrown in, rough, and I said, 'Please don't be too nice,'" Trump said.

"Like when you guys put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head, you know, the way you put their hand over, like, don't hit their head and they've just killed somebody, don't hit their head, I said, 'You can take the hand away, OK?'"

Representatives Steve Cohen, Luis Gutiérrez, Al Green, Adriano Espaillat, Marcia Fudge and John Yarmuth, November 15

Obstruction of Justice
Democrats made their biggest push yet for impeachment when six members of the House unveiled five articles of impeachment last week. Announcing the move, Steve Cohen of Tennessee began, as Sherman had done before, by accusing Trump of obstruction of justice in his ousting of Comey. The matter has also played an increasing role in Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation.

 

Violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause
The Constitution bars federal officials from receiving payments from foreign officials, something Trump has been accused of breaching since before he even took office. Many of the complaints have centered on the Trump Organization's hotels and golf resorts around the globe. Multiple lawsuits have been filed accusing Trump of violating the clause.

Violation of the Domestic Emoluments Clause
The domestic emoluments clause prohibits a sitting president from accepting compensation beyond that of his salary. Trump's new hotel in Washington, D.C., which has hosted multiple foreign dignitaries and government officials, has been a particular source of controversy.

Undermining the Federal Judiciary
Trump has made multiple comments criticizing judges, particularly over their halting of his multiple executive orders banning travel from Muslim-majority countries.

 

Undermining the Freedom of the Press
Not only have Trump's attacks on the mainstream media and cries of "fake news" become daily occurrences during his presidency, he is also reported to have once told Comey to jail journalists who published government leaks.

Trump's actions against the judiciary and the press, Cohen said, represent a "pattern of behavior of belittling and questioning these institutions that are so important for our democracy."

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...