Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
WHAT IS HIS FUCKING POINT?!Since 2008, Russia has manifested an overtly aggressive foreign policy, leveraging military power and employing hybrid warfare to achieve its objectives of regional hegemony and global influence. Absent a deterrent to dissuade Russia from such aggression, there is an increased risk of further confrontations with the West.
WHAT ABOUT SKOLKOVO?
OBAMA AND SOS CLINTON, BEGINNING IN 2009
NOT ONLY FUNDED TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS
FOR RUSSIA'S MILITARY AND INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES
WITH OUR TAX DOLLARS BUT ALSO LOANED RUSSIA
OUR EXPERTS AND SCIENTISTS TO ASSIST THEM
AND SECURED PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN RUSSIA
AND GOOGLE, MICROSOFT, CISCO, IBM AND OTHERS,
WHO ALSO PLEDGED UPWARDS OF $1 BILLION DOLLARS
TO ASSIST RUSSIA WITH TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENTS
AND WOULD ALSO HAVE A STAKE IN SKOLKOVO
RUSSIA RECEIVED $1 BILLION IN 2011 from USAID
$315 MILLION IN 2015
$19 MILLION IN 2016
$168 MILLION IN 2017
UKRAINE RECEIVED MILITARY FUNDING IN(USAID)
2015 FOR $47 MILLION($272 MILLION)
2016 FOR $80 MILLION($513 MILLION)
2017 FOR $99 MILLION($511 MILLION)
ALL LOANS FOR THESE 3 YEARS WERE WAIVED
WHAT THE FUCK!
YOU AND THE LT COL CAN GO FUCK YOURSELVES!
Stupid Democrats don't know what legal terms like executive privilege mean.We don't have the phone call. So that's an odd question. Trump could produce it, though.
And the transcript is part of the evidence. Testimony of State Dept. officials, that's compelling evidence. The obstruction is also evidence. And they are getting more evidence every day.
It's funny when you Dems pretend to be lawyers.executive privilege is null & void when it is used to cover illegal activity.
I find this topic to be very confusing.
My understanding of it is this.
The Dems position is that Trump used his office to influence a foreign power for personal benefit rather than in the National interest. This by linking Ukranian aid to an investigation into a political opponent.
That part seems to be pretty much beyond doubt. All of the evidence points to this and Trumps task is to build a credible case that would exonerate him.
The GOP/Trump case is to ignore the actual crime and focus on the process and personalities. That in itself is telling and in a legal sense is just noise. It gives the plebs something to parrot but is just deflection.
I cant see anyway out of this for Trump. Have I missed anything ?
I find this topic to be very confusing.
My understanding of it is this.
The Dems position is that Trump used his office to influence a foreign power for personal benefit rather than in the National interest. This by linking Ukranian aid to an investigation into a political opponent.
That part seems to be pretty much beyond doubt. All of the evidence points to this and Trumps task is to build a credible case that would exonerate him.
The GOP/Trump case is to ignore the actual crime and focus on the process and personalities. That in itself is telling and in a legal sense is just noise. It gives the plebs something to parrot but is just deflection.
I cant see anyway out of this for Trump. Have I missed anything ?
Yeah, basically.
What you missed is, first, you underestimate process. In a (quasi) legal proceeding the end result is invalid in case the process wasn't meticulously followed.
Second, Trump's strategy is to besmirch the proceedings and the involved personalities in order to cast doubts on the result. The final aim is to protect the electoral prospects of Goober Senators, who will vote to acquit unless that vote puts their re-election in doubt. So, public perception should commonly be, at least among Republicans and Independents, that this is not about removing a to-the-bones corrupt crook, but partisan maneuvering.
I would imagine that in such a high profile case they would tread carefully. Well you would think so.
I think this approach is his only option. If he had a valid defence it would have been tweeted by now.
But the clowns on here are not representative ? Surely not ?I would imagine that in such a high profile case they would tread carefully. Well you would think so.
I think this approach is his only option. If he had a valid defence it would have been tweeted by now.
In 2016, Trump waged a bet on the stupidity and ignorance of the electorate. He won that bet.
Now he's wagering he can win that same bet, again. Look around on here, the man has a point.
Here is a cut & paste of this morning's news...Here is a cut & paste of this morning news...
“Former Defense Department and CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash blasted a segment on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle as “absolutely despicable,” after host Laura Ingraham and her guest, legal professor John Yoo strongly suggested a Trump national security official, Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, could be guilty of “espionage” after news broke that he plans to testify to Congress that he objected to improper White House political influence toward Ukraine.”
Here is a cut & paste of this morning's news...Here is a cut & paste of this morning news...
“Former Defense Department and CIA chief of staff Jeremy Bash blasted a segment on Fox News’ The Ingraham Angle as “absolutely despicable,” after host Laura Ingraham and her guest, legal professor John Yoo strongly suggested a Trump national security official, Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, could be guilty of “espionage” after news broke that he plans to testify to Congress that he objected to improper White House political influence toward Ukraine.”
Fox News Guest 'Regrets' Explosive Espionage Claim, Admits Trump Quid Pro Quo
A Fox News guest who seemed to accuse Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman of espionage ahead of his testimony in the House impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump now says he didn’t mean it that way.
In a new CNN interview, John Yoo also admitted that Trump “seemed to ask for a quid pro quo” when he called on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden.
It's funny when you Dems pretend to be lawyers.executive privilege is null & void when it is used to cover illegal activity.
I find this topic to be very confusing.
My understanding of it is this.
The Dems position is that Trump used his office to influence a foreign power for personal benefit rather than in the National interest. This by linking Ukranian aid to an investigation into a political opponent.
That part seems to be pretty much beyond doubt. All of the evidence points to this and Trumps task is to build a credible case that would exonerate him.
The GOP/Trump case is to ignore the actual crime and focus on the process and personalities. That in itself is telling and in a legal sense is just noise. It gives the plebs something to parrot but is just deflection.
I cant see anyway out of this for Trump. Have I missed anything ?
Opening statement....
"I am a Zionist Jew"
"I only care about Israel"
"I believe the US exists to serve, fund, defend, and expand Israel"
"I believe Jews like Epstein should be above US law"
"I want US troops in Syria to help Israel re-conquer the Promised Land"
"Yeah, I was long gold, oil, defense stocks, and the long bond on 9/10... and so were most of you (the Congress)"
It's funny when you Dems pretend to be lawyers.executive privilege is null & void when it is used to cover illegal activity.
blocking subpoenas, refusing to turn over docs, & claiming exec privilege to stop people from testifying is no way to prove one's innocence, son. if donny were innocent - he'd be begging to be under the microscope.
It's funny when you Dems pretend to be lawyers.executive privilege is null & void when it is used to cover illegal activity.
blocking subpoenas, refusing to turn over docs, & claiming exec privilege to stop people from testifying is no way to prove one's innocence, son. if donny were innocent - he'd be begging to be under the microscope.
