Jump to content

NeoConvict

Member
  • Content Count

    15,451
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Conservative

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    CO

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. None of them but sondland made this claim and it was demolished on cross examination. I think Trump did it and was looking for proof. Still think he used aid to pressure Ukraine but there hasn't been any evidence.
  2. None of the testimony came to that conclusion except sondland and he heard it from vindman that Guiliani said. Next?
  3. There's been no testimony that aid had anything to do with investigation aside from an assumption by sondland. WEAK! I think he did it, it's amazing how inept the Democrats have been at proving it.
  4. He still has to do it in defense of office. I have already said multiple times I don't believe Bolton is lying. Trump strongly pressured Ukraine to investigate corruption involving the Bidens. Trump established some solid plausible deniability with the aid but it was paused in part to show Ukraine he was serious. I doubt Bolton will be able to definitively pierce the deniability Trump has set up. At best he will claim Trump told him the aid was being withheld to pressure Ukraine but won't have evidence to back this allegation. Trump will deny it.
  5. He has an interesting connection to both the whistleblower and Ukraine. He wouldn't get out unscathed.
  6. Not scared, he has to defend the office. He would be derelict of duty if he didn't object to a cabinet member answering a Congressional subpoena.
  7. Goody, subpoena him, hope he has tapes. It will take weeks to be heard by the supreme court after Trump predictably asserts executive privilege. This will open the door to Republicans requesting Biden, Schiff, Zelensky, Guiliani and the whistleblower. They don't enjoy executive privilege protection so would be heard weeks before Bolton would be allowed to testify. Go for it!!
  8. Definitely election interference. I am hoping Darth Bader Ginsberg leaves the court this summer. It will be entertaining to see those who claim their is no Biden rule suddenly find faith in it.
  9. Strawman. Urban island's are not a significant contributor to global warming but they are a significant contributor to monitoring data collection points. Enough to fully mitigate any observed warming in areas where urbanization has overtaken a data collection point.
  10. I don't believe he should have been removed. Perjury, even over a blowjob, should be punished. Censure would have been more appropriate than impeachment.
  11. When you account for urbanization near data collection points the observed "anomaly" has leveled off or decreased.
  12. https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/474214-white-house-budget-office-asserts-rationale-for-holding-up-ukraine
  13. I think they proved Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate the Bidens unholy relationship with Burisma. I just don't see any criminal action in asking for a criminal investigation, regardless of who the parties are. If the investigation turned up nothing then Biden would have a talking point. If it found corruption that would be in the national interest as well as in the interest of the DNC who wouldn't perhaps want to run a candidate with such a flaw.
×
×
  • Create New...