The impending impeachment hearings of Donald J. Trump

**NCRAVEN** · 11-21-2019, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

You know I just did a quid quo pro at lunch. Now you should investigate my quod quo pro at the gas station

**ravenmaniac4life** · 11-21-2019, 01:51 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

pretty sure i said the opposite. I think he should. his ties to Trump while doing so are whats muddying the waters between personal and state.

I dont care about the media, for somebody that doesnt like it you certainly seem to put a lot of emphasis on what they think and do.

He doesnt need to clear his name. what do you expect to be able to control everybody's opinion? thats and incredibly futile thing to attempt.

Im fine with investigating the money being lost. Im not the one that has issues with investigations. :)

one person claims to have helped HRC to my knowledge and i havent seen what supports that. thats not a top down Ukrainian indictment and our entire IC says what really happened, wasnt them. I believe our IC, you dont and thats fine.

I dont think I said I had issue with him asking about corruption. the only thing i mentioned on here was when I said its clear he asked him for those "favors" which you argued he didnt, until now youre admitting he did but its ok. goalposts moving?

not helping trump in general. with his followers it certainly isnt hurting.

you played both sides of the coin in the mueller investigation saying he was corrupt and part of the conspiracy against Trump while also saying he proved you right and continue to pat yourself on the back for it. I continue to say, Its not good to make up an opinion until you have all the facts. That you were not privy to them all except what was reported in the media and that should be questioned. I will not stop taking that approach because it is not wrong. The times I said "you dont know that" is in direct connection to a time youd ask a question and fill in the answer with opinion. Youre stamping of the Mueller report as a win for yourself, doesnt change those times you did just that.

this scenario is much different when were discussing testimony. its completely open now, and the fact gathering is known real time. Im not saying you dont know any of this. I only pointed out that what they asked wasnt what he admitted to.

This was a point about leadership moreso than impeachment (you keep arguing like i think this proves impeachment and Ive said the opposite numerous times), but the part bolded about it being for personal reasons, that is relevant for the law. If its for political gain, then no, he cant use him in that capacity which is part of the whole gripe that originated this. The weaponized state department is a go to for republicans about Obama/HRC is it not? We agree there doesnt seem to be evidence pointing to that.

I am too busy today to break this down...so, I'll simply say this.

Going back to your "we don't know" days... Look at it like this... The Ravens were up on Houston by 30+ points in the 2nd half of last week's game. Anyone watching the game would say..."the Ravens will win." That sentiment is an opinion because we REALLY "don't know" for sure, but...let's be honest...the game was over.

In looking at what was happening in the Russia probe, the Left was losing by 30+ points in the 2nd half and you kept saying "we don't know." I'm not patting myself on the back to say that I was right, you were wrong. I'm just saying that you weren't acknowledging something that was pretty easy to see.

**JAB1985** · 11-21-2019, 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

I am too busy today to break this down...so, I'll simply say this.

Going back to your "we don't know" days... Look at it like this... The Ravens were up on Houston by 30+ points in the 2nd half of last week's game. Anyone watching the game would say..."the Ravens will win." That sentiment is an opinion because we REALLY "don't know" for sure, but...let's be honest...the game was over.

In looking at what was happening in the Russia probe, the Left was losing by 30+ points in the 2nd half and you kept saying "we don't know." I'm not patting myself on the back to say that I was right, you were wrong. I'm just saying that you weren't acknowledging something that was pretty easy to see.

I dont agree with your analogy, but sure I get thats how you felt. You can act like you were privy to the entire investigation throughout (like knowing the total score would equate to), but you werent. it was private and where I was fine admitting I didnt have all the information youd ask for or media would leave open ("we dont know"), you were ok with doing just that and id tell you as much when you did ("you dont know"). Im not sure why that bothered you so much.

**NCRAVEN** · 11-21-2019, 03:15 PM

John Ratcliffe has this Holmes dude scrambling! This is entertaining.

**Vlad the lad** · 11-21-2019, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

disagree. if youre looking into one quid pro quo and somebody admits to another, you look into it all the same.

I get Trump supporters want this to just end and be over with. Id rather it be thorough and dismissed, than allow open ends to linger.

I think most trump supporters want this to continue. It’s only helping trump

**bossofataka** · 11-21-2019, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

Believe he meant because the democratic party positions itself as the party of women, so it would be a slap in the face of a republican woman was the first female president.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Well, I got that, just pointing out that to most "on my side", atleast over here and as far as I can tell over there aswell, it´s not at all that big of a deal and you´d be hard pressed to find a single democrat that wouldn´t happily change Trump for Haley in an instant given the choice.

**JimZipCode** · 11-21-2019, 09:31 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

You know I just did a quid quo pro at lunch. Now you should investigate my quod quo pro at the gas station

If I ran a restaurant near Capitol Hill, I'd call the calamari appetizer "squid pro quo".

**JAB1985** · 11-22-2019, 08:29 AM

I pretty much fully fall in line with Will Hurd's comments (its a shame hes leaving politics).

He doesnt agree with impeachment based on what we saw.
really doesnt agree if the democrats vote for it anyway.
doesnt like some of the actions of the executive branch within this, nor wants them to continue.
He wishes we heard from the people higher up and has questions for them.
Has questions about Hunter/Joe, Bursima, aid.
we lost sight of who this is really effecting (ukrainians and an ally while hurting our national security)

https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/...aring-day-one/

if they stop the hearings and vote based on this and pass it, thatll be a big mistake. sounds like thats what they plan to do as the articles have been leaked and the Republicans already plan to do a full trial and not dismiss it quickly, so this doesnt appear to be going away soon. Only positive of that is that hopefully we hear from the bigger players in the actual trial.

**blah3** · 11-22-2019, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by JAB1985

we lost sight of who this is really effecting (ukrainians and an ally while hurting our national security)

.

So how is Ukraine doing worse with trump in office? They seem to be in better shape

**ravenmaniac4life** · 11-22-2019, 08:56 AM

I forget who said it...but someone on the forum was asking if putting preconditions on a meeting were within the scope of responsibilities of a President...

Lol. Of course they are.

The Democrats are trying to pretend that doing this is somehow sinister. Give me a break.

Swallwell: A meeting at the White House. If someone really needs a meeting at the White House to show their legitimacy to their people, that leveraging that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong.

Sondland: To be candid, Congressman, every meeting at the White House has conditions placed on it. I have never worked on a meeting at the White House that doesn’t have a host of conditions placed on it.

**JAB1985** · 11-22-2019, 09:15 AM

Originally Posted by blah3

So how is Ukraine doing worse with trump in office? They seem to be in better shape

I dont think that was really the comment made.

Id say theyre in better in some ways, for sure. I dont see any of this as "good". I believe thats what Hurd was referring to, as he was commenting on Hill's and Homes testimony.

**blah3** · 11-22-2019, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

I forget who said it...but someone on the forum was asking if putting preconditions on a meeting were within the scope of responsibilities of a President...

Lol. Of course they are.

The Democrats are trying to pretend that doing this is somehow sinister. Give me a break.

Swallwell: A meeting at the White House. If someone really needs a meeting at the White House to show their legitimacy to their people, that leveraging that meeting and asking for an investigation would be wrong.

Sondland: To be candid, Congressman, every meeting at the White House has conditions placed on it. I have never worked on a meeting at the White House that doesn’t have a host of conditions placed on it.

Pretty much all of foreign policy is a quid prop quo.