Transcript released - WH - No quid pro quo

a reply to: TheRedneck

I'm thinking Warren's success has been pushed by the DNC after the talk of Biden's bragging episode was brought up. That could have resulted from the investigations in Ukraine as well. If the DNC got wind of this operation, they could easily get the MSM to give Warren a shove over Biden. Now they need to throw him under the bus and pull this impeachment nonsense to keep the heat off themselves.

I think Biden started off hot out the gate just because of name recognition and people had good feelz because they loved the Obama admin for whatever reason (cutesy memes probably). But once the debates started, he started losing traction. I haven't watched any of them, but I've heard clips and he just doesn't sound like a confident candidate, nor does he seem to have a solid platform he can answer quickly on. Rather, he seems to be riding the coat tail of Obama (horrible idea).

Warren is a pretty solid speaker, and she seems to have a firm grasp on her platform, and stays linear and on topic.

Personally, I don't think the DNC has started pulling strings just yet, they don't need to, there is plenty of time before Iowa. I believe this is just organic, people are starting to see Biden just isn't viable, something that's been known by people who look at things more closely since when he announced.

What is the deal with new members (within the last 2 days)?

Seems like there is a payroll for this.

arguing over this in particular is pointless. none of us has any say in the matter, and we all know the left has wanted to impeach since a few days before day one. So let the chips fall where they may. If they truly have Trump for a crime, impeach and see if you can convince the Senate. For the left's sake, they sure better hope they can. Otherwise, it's going to be right wing season the next election.

a reply to: Gorgonite look its simple the Clinton News Network will say and do anything to get the left in power they screamed at the top of their lungs for almost 3yrs about the Muller report and how it will sink Trump. Shifty Schiff went on and swore he had real evidence that would prove it.. give it up nothing in the transcript is bad and certainly not impeachable.. but keep hope alive

a reply to: Arnie123

Regular CNN viewers would technically be no information voters because CNN has no information. But on the bright side, they are high infotainment voters. They just don’t get the laughs that a Stephen Colbert viewer gets. Which is okay, because I don’t laugh while watching Colbert, just eye rolls.

Democrats are willing to lay their head on the chopping block for one huge secret.

a reply to: CynConcepts


Ummm...thank you CynConcepts...I was typing up my post when you posted this...much appreciated...

Thanks also to TheRedneck...glad to see that you both have got my six...












YouSir

originally posted by: MrRCflying
What is the deal with new members (within the last 2 days)?

Seems like there is a payroll for this.

originally posted by: Gorgonite

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: jhn7537
What's crazy is there was no quid pro quo, this is obvious, but turn on CNN and you would think Trump went "if you dont investigate Biden, we wont give you foreign aid".... they are beyond delusional

It's all feed for their audience of low info voters.

Already we have a few users afflicted from the data transfer and pushing out opinions as facts.

I find it interesting that you claim CNN is lying without proof, yet you believe Trump who has changed his story on this matter alone a dozen times.

At what point do you ask yourself, “Why am I accepting the word of a liar as gospel?”

At some point, stare into the mirror and ask yourself why your continously wrong as a result of the liberal media you watch?

You says liar and gospel, I say you take the lies of liberal media and preach it like Gospel, problem is, you came here to do it and its failing hard.

The fact that you singled this out tells me I'm not wrong and I may have touched upon a nerve, low info voter are we? CNN your morning cup of tea? Oh what a lovely tea party this was ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Wayfarer

I can give you props for sounding confident at least. Incorrect, but confident (which I guess is the whole Trump MO so par for the course).

So pray tell, can you cite either Constitutional paragraph/section or legal title/code where it is illegal for the president to suggest a meeting between a foreign dignitary and a US citizen?

For the record would you mind informing ATS what exactly your legal credentials/expertise consist of?

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on ATS. About the same as you, in other words.

Only I give legal references. Where's yours?

TheRedneck

You and I have the same extensive legal background.

However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.

My lawyer friend puts it much more eloquently than I can.

million here, billion there, pretty soon and you are talking about trashed rental cars, crackpipes and various government IDs left behind...

I hope those chickens finally come home to roost...

a reply to: CriticalStinker

Under about any other circumstances I would agree... Biden just wasn't cutting the mustard. The timing makes me wonder, though. There has to be some seriously damaging dirt on the Democratic Party in the Ukraine for them to jerk this hard.

I doubt we will ever know for sure either way, but hey... it's fun to think about.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Something seems fishy about this entire story and sensationalism that is coming with it. My gut tells there this is a deflection or misdirection to something more sinister.

Obviously there is no evidence of Pelosi doing anything wrong, but it gets my attention that she is blowing this out of proportions. Why now?

It is more than likely something is going on behind the scenes is this is a distraction, imho.

a reply to: Gorgonite

Gotcha, you’re one of those Trump supporters.

which of "those" are you referring to?
one of "those" who prefers the truth, then sure.
what you are attempting to peddle is not such

So, the transcript literally shows Trump directing Zelensky to work with Rudy on the Biden and Crowdstrike investigations

that is a lie
asking is not your "directing" trump was not ordering or commanding
"whatever you can do" and "if possible" are in no way directing
so yes you are lying
easily exposed lying i might add

also potus asked about speaking with the AG, not just his personal attorney
interesting you lied by omission on that point, or perhaps not interesting

You’re one of those very useful naive folks who will reject what they see with their eyes and ears for the story spun by Trump.

nope
read the transcript myself
I do not know that trump has released a statement on it yet, has he?

You really need to self reflect on what you stand for.

at your direction
no thanks I am good
I stand for the truth

You are bending yourself over backwards to protect the interests of Trump. You don’t stand for anything of value, just whatever protects Trump and his interests.

nope
you are the one posting easily debunked lies about a transcript printed in plain english

That is sad. I honestly feel bad for you. I know you aren’t capable of understanding why this is sad, but maybe one day you will realize you were manipulated like a puppet.

thanks for the sympathy
i do not however feel the same for you as your lies appear intentional

Do you realize you are defending illegal behavior because why?

what illegal behavior? your lies?
it is the only illegal behavior I have encountered today.

What are your values?

unlike you, I do not post easily debunked lies on the internet.
nor do I attack those who reveal easily debunked lies on the internet
sorry that you do

if you dont want to get called out dont post lies

originally posted by: MrRCflying
What is the deal with new members (within the last 2 days)?

Seems like there is a payroll for this.

Funny innit?

Though, Its probably good to mention plenty will do it for free.. They are building a new type of psuedo-theocratic nation, after all.

Also gotta love those posts that get dozens of stars in moments, FAR outside the situations that would legitimately yield that response.

They dont even really try to hide it, maybe due to incompetence, maybe indifference. But, many of their tactics are meant to create a perception of support beyond what actually exists.

It literally doesnt matter what was in this transcript, in much the same way it doesnt matter that this religion doesnt have the support they think they deserve.

If the transcript showed a conversation about puppies and kittens, it would have been claimed its all code for "insert orange man bad here."

a reply to: Wayfarer

You and I have the same extensive legal background.

Good! We got that argument out of the way.

However to put it clearly what you're arguing isn't a crime because of semantics. When the president is extorting a foreign official, anyone who enables that extortion on behalf of the president (Guliani) is also committing a crime.

That is true, but you assume extortion. There is no proof of extortion. There is only an insinuation on your part that I find difficult to see.

It is common for more than one subject to be breached within a single phone call, and those multiple subjects need not be related. The Ukrainian President indicates his own desire to have investigations into allegations of corruption in previous administrations. At one point, they discuss a female ambassador who has been replaced as someone who opposed the new administration's goals because of allegiance to the old administration. That sounds eerily familiar to what Trump has experienced.

There is no extortion when both parties agree to cooperate. Extortion implies that one party is exercising unwanted control over the other. There is simply no indication of that in this transcript. Without that premise, your legal argument falls apart.

TheRedneck

a reply to: jrod

Wait till you see what Pelosi has done.

a reply to: jrod

I think you should probably listen to that gut.

Obviously there is no evidence of Pelosi doing anything wrong, but it gets my attention that she is blowing this out of proportions. Why now?

That is exactly what I am wondering. Why did she need to push impeachment yesterday when she knew the transcript was going to be released today? Her position would be much more believable if she had actually read the transcript before deciding it was indicative of a crime.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

There has to be some seriously damaging dirt on the Democratic Party in the Ukraine for them to jerk this hard.

Considering the revolution there happened in 14', and there is plenty of instances to make one question our involvement in such with all the geopolitical ramifications... There's a lot of hypotheticals that could be possible.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: jrod

Wait till you see what Pelosi has done.

She (and others) needs to provide all transcripts of all conversations from her recent visits to Mexico and other Countries.

😎