Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
BrooklynGuy

Pelosi’s impeachment flip-flop

345 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ExpandMyMind
12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Just like Fox News eh?  Great.  That clears that up.

Well, Fox can have high factual reporting, but it has a history of outright fabrications. This is referring only to the news reporting section of the channel. The opinion area is the stuff of nightmares.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
Just now, Imaginarynumber1 said:

He did indeed say that. I was wrong.

However, still nothing to do with is son

Hmm.. that is entirely possible @Imaginarynumber1. However, it is also possible that it WAS to do with his son, or that his son may have been a factor in his decision making. That's the awkward thing about having potential conflicts of interest. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Well, Fox can have high factual reporting, but it has a history of outright fabrications. This is referring only to the news reporting section of the channel. The opinion area is the stuff of nightmares.

I quite enjoy the Tucker Carlson programs. Or at least... I DID.. until Youtube started censoring them. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
54 minutes ago, and then said:

:sleepy:  Did I mention... SEVENTEEN SENATORS?

Okay link something to this 17 senators. Probably a crapshoot but let’s have a look at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
54 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

When Pelosi took a vote to begin an "official impeachment inquiry" (a meaningless title with zero precedent), she broke with protocol and refused to record the names of the legislators who voted in favor.

Why would she do this?

Because she knows what an absurdly risky gamble all of this is, with an enormous potential for political backlash against House members who will be up for re-election in 2020.  So she hid their names to protect them.  Not exactly a proud moment for the Dems!

Yeah sure Hacktop. I bet she also put them on a different server.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Yeah sure Hacktop. I bet she also put them on a different server.

It's worse than that.  She committed them to memory, so they're already lost.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
20 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Well, Fox can have high factual reporting, but it has a history of outright fabrications. This is referring only to the news reporting section of the channel. The opinion area is the stuff of nightmares.

Just like the WaPo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
22 minutes ago, hacktorp said:

Imaginarynumber1:

"Biden got no one fired."

Biden (on camera):

"I said, "you've got six hours to fire him, or you're not getting the money"...and, sonofab!tch, he got fired."

Care to explain?

eta:  I see you've admitted your error.

Care to explain why it would even matter whether it involved Hunter or not?  Extortion is extortion, after all.

It would not have mattered if Hunter weren't involved because he could have had a legitimate concern the money would be misused by corrupt people a corrupt prosecutor may be in bed with and that still could legitimately be the case although Hunter should have recused himself from serving on that companies board of directors to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

It would not have mattered if Hunter weren't involved because he could have had a legitimate concern the money would be misused by corrupt people a corrupt prosecutor may be in bed with and that still could legitimately be the case although Hunter should have recused himself from serving on that companies board of directors to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

All of the "if"s and "could have"s in the above demonstrate why this needs further looking into.

With half a billion dollars exchanged amid plenty of apparent evidence of self-dealing, a deep investigation is wholly appropriate.

Now, Dems seem to feel they are the only side qualified to investigate...whether it's investigating Trump OR themselves.  Funny that, but certainly not everyone agrees.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
50 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. most interesting.. thanks for that @ExpandMyMind. I've got one question though. 

Nancy Pelosi stated that it was "the law" that DNI did not pass on the whistleblower complaint immediately to congress. 

Is this REALLY a law ? Or just a departmental procedural rule ? 

If it IS a law, then WHICH law ? 

Did you watch the proceeding? One guy was grilling him on the subpoena and why he didn't bring it forward in 7 days,  yada, yada and finally McGuire got in that he'd coordinated with the Chairman (Schiff) about the extra week.....and it was quickly dropped. Then afterwards....they started  beating that dead horse again. I guess not only doesn't Pelosi read anything relevant, she doesn't watch anything either. The lieing right to our faces (the cameras) is unbelievably blatant!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

He clearly says he wants Europe to put up money. I was responding to that. 

Yes. Hence the "Mostly false" by Politifact. It's a debate what he actual meant (military vs monetary aid), but on the face of it he was wrong. 

Are Dems 100% correct all the time or something?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
4 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

Just to be clear. Are you suggesting that it's okay to illegally investigate a political opponent AFTER Ukraine said tat there wasn't  case to answer for?

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if the Ukraine conducted an investigation that it is an illegal investigation?? :no:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
59 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes it does.  It ensured his son made $50k a month from his role on the board of directors of that company.

This all going on after we (Obama admin) funded and otherwise supported the overthrow of the previous Ukrainian government and replaced it with our own little puppets.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

Oh horse****. Ukraine was practically Russia before. And regardless of any wrongdoings by Biden or his kid, one act does not excuse the other.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
1 hour ago, hacktorp said:

Imaginarynumber1:

"Biden got no one fired."

Biden (on camera):

"I said, "you've got six hours to fire him, or you're not getting the money"...and, sonofab!tch, he got fired."

Care to explain?

eta:  I see you've admitted your error.

Care to explain why it would even matter whether it involved Hunter or not?  Extortion is extortion, after all.

Because, as I said, even if Biden is guilty, it doesn't give trump the clearance to also commit extortion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp

Does this help explain why the entire "swamp" seems to be in a tizzy over the Ukraine mess?

BNL NEWS @BreakingNLive
FollowFollow @BreakingNLive
More

BREAKING: Mitt Romney’s national security advisor from his 2012 campaign sits on the board of the Ukrainian gas company that paid Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden $50,000 a month

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
8 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Oh horse****. Ukraine was practically Russia before. And regardless of any wrongdoings by Biden or his kid, one act does not excuse the other.

 

7 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Because, as I said, even if Biden is guilty, it doesn't give trump the clearance to also commit extortion. 

From the facts we have so far there is no extortion.

You are seeing imaginary words, and pushing them as fact.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ian hacktorp
3 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Because, as I said, even if Biden is guilty, it doesn't give trump the clearance to also commit extortion. 

It sure doesn't.  But if Biden is guilty, it seems ludicrous to give him (and Hunter) a pass just because Trump might benefit from Biden's downfall.

At some point, the most egregious crimes need to be prosecuted, or we have no rule of law.  I would rather be holding Trump's poker hand than Biden's right now.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
58 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Oh horse****. Ukraine was practically Russia before. And regardless of any wrongdoings by Biden or his kid, one act does not excuse the other.

Who's making excuses.  If Biden did or did not use his position as VP to enrich his son then it should be verified in Senate, not on the back of some crap WaPo article.  I think there is enough to be suspicious over and it should be checked.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
59 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

Because, as I said, even if Biden is guilty, it doesn't give trump the clearance to also commit extortion. 

There was none.  The Ukraine, to the best of our knowledge, has not opened up an investigation and we gave them the aid money.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

i wonder where did that money go, cuz as far as lives of regular people in Ukraine, it still just as bad as it was before, but the rada swamp buys new rolls royces, yachts, helicopters, and build even bigger villas. it was not help to Ukraine, it was  politician's cut

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
1 hour ago, Davros of Skaro said:

Yes. Hence the "Mostly false" by Politifact. It's a debate what he actual meant (military vs monetary aid), but on the face of it he was wrong. 

Are Dems 100% correct all the time or something?

In this case I think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Truman show
1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Just to be clear, are you suggesting that if the Ukraine conducted an investigation that it is an illegal investigation?? :no:

No it wouldn’t be illegal but rather a fishing expedition. Ukraine has already said there was not a case for the Bidens to answer before Trump threatened to hold back aid and made his private attorney the defacto U.S. ambassador.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davros of Skaro
1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

In this case I think so.

Thinking so brings so much win. 

RashImperturbableEelelephant-size_restri

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

This 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.