ADVERTISEMENT

Blowing whistles

the best way to frame this fight.

if you support trump-

you are fighting to PRESERVE what made america great. in 250 years, this system surpassed any other system created. we wanna preserve this system, cleaning the wheels, polishing the chrome.

if you are an anti- trump-

you respect the system that made america great, but its time for change, time to take more of a european approach.

up to you to vote.

preserve our current system

or

change our current system

simple really
 
appalachiatiger said:
if you support trump-
you are fighting to PRESERVE what made america great....
simple really
Click to expand...
Admitting to cheating on your wife while she is pregnant? Sorry my moral compass can't support that. We have plenty of better Republicans than that.
 
Rychek4 said:
Admitting to cheating on your wife while she is pregnant? Sorry my moral compass can't support that. We have plenty of better Republicans than that.
Click to expand...

I see you're still not "woke" as to what has been going on. These are not normal times, and is not a simple dem vs repub scenatio.
 
“A provision slyly added at the last minute is all but certain to deprive President Trump of the ability to defend himself,” Betsy McCaughey writes in the New York Post.

“House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists the impeachment procedures adopted last Thursday are ‘the fairest possible.’ Don’t believe it,” McCaughey says.

“Section F, quietly devised by Judiciary Committee Chair Jerold Nadler, stipulates that unless the president surrenders executive privilege — a power even the Supreme Court has ruled is vital to his office — he and his lawyers will be denied any ability to call or question witnesses.”

McCaughey calls it straight: “With a Senate conviction and removal from office highly unlikely, because real evidence of wrong-doing is lacking, the only goal of House impeachment is to damage the president.”
 
orangelvis said:
I see you're still not "woke" as to what has been going on. These are not normal times, and is not a simple dem vs repub scenatio.
Click to expand...
I admire your ability to defend someone cheating on their wife despite a moral code. I couldn't do it.
 
Rychek4 said:
I admire your ability to defend someone cheating on their wife despite a moral code. I couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

hell- i dont know a man without skeletons.

every man i know does something wrong thats in the bible.

you would be alone if you disavowed all men who disobey god.

thats why they designed the forgiveness clause.
 
bam864 said:
@hopefultiger13 @nytigerfan

You two stay on the political rants but frankly I'd love to hear one thing from both.. Who do you think (not want) to win in 2020 and why
Click to expand...

notice they never have evidence.

if they hear it on - CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT -

they auto think its true without doing the research to back u
bam864 said:
@hopefultiger13 @nytigerfan

You two stay on the political rants but frankly I'd love to hear one thing from both.. Who do you think (not want) to win in 2020 and why
Click to expand...

how is this for truth guys?

impeachment power-

speaker- nancy pelosi- california
judiciary chair- jerry nadler- new york
intel chair- adam schiff- california
maj leader- steny hoyer- washington dc
maj whip- jim clyburn- south carolina
oversight- elijah cummings- maryland (deceased)
w&m- richard neal- massachusetts


these are the only opinions that really matter right now, and then the actual committee members' voices. whatever you hear from anyone else really is just opinion. notice where everyone is from, not just party.

when it gets to the senate-

these voices are all that matter

vp- mike pence- indiana
pro tem- chuck grassley- iowa
maj leader- mitch mcconnell- kentucky
judiciary chair- lyndsay graham- south carolina
rules chair- roy blunt- missouri
maj whip- john thune- south dakota
forrel chair- james risch- idaho
homesec chr- ron johnson- wisconsin
 
appalachiatiger said:
notice they never have evidence.

if they hear it on - CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT -

they auto think its true without doing the research to back u


how is this for truth guys?

impeachment power-

speaker- nancy pelosi- california
judiciary chair- jerry nadler- new york
intel chair- adam schiff- california
maj leader- steny hoyer- washington dc
maj whip- jim clyburn- south carolina
oversight- elijah cummings- maryland (deceased)
w&m- richard neal- massachusetts


these are the only opinions that really matter right now, and then the actual committee members' voices. whatever you hear from anyone else really is just opinion. notice where everyone is from, not just party.

when it gets to the senate-

these voices are all that matter

vp- mike pence- indiana
pro tem- chuck grassley- iowa
maj leader- mitch mcconnell- kentucky
judiciary chair- lyndsay graham- south carolina
rules chair- roy blunt- missouri
maj whip- john thune- south dakota
forrel chair- james risch- idaho
homesec chr- ron johnson- wisconsin
Click to expand...


Lol the common theme from them is "You trust anything the President says" but never explain factually how he is wrong. Trump could say the sun is going to rise in the morning and they would rebuke that somehow. It's almost like they are troll accounts. Add Washington Post to the stated networks and it's spot on. With regards to impeachment I read where Schiff dictates who is allowed to testify, when they are allowed to testify and has already excluded President's council from testifying
 
bam864 said:
Lol the common theme from them is "You trust anything the President says" but never explain factually how he is wrong. Trump could say the sun is going to rise in the morning and they would rebuke that somehow. It's almost like they are troll accounts. Add Washington Post to the stated networks and it's spot on. With regards to impeachment I read where Schiff dictates who is allowed to testify, when they are allowed to testify and has already excluded President's council from testifying
Click to expand...

so yea, remember when this started- schiff told pelosi he finally had the evidence to impeach. (whistleblower complaint)

NOTE- remember he said he had direct evidence of donald trump colluded with the putin.

well, once the transcript was released, what was in (whistleblower complaint) did not match the transcript.

thats why the ig and justice dept ignored it when it was reported to the proper channels.

thats how schiffs staff got this. the justice dept said it wasnt real.

anyway, pelosi found out by reading the transcript. schiff didnt think they would release it.

now- everyone knows trump ask the ukrainians to clean up their corruption.

what pelosi didnt realize was that people are,shifting over to why the president ask for this.

this is why biden is really in big trouble. he will have to drop out. thats why bloomberg is entering. they need a moderate.

the only voices that matter now, because we know pelosi passed the torch to shift so she can stay clean and let schiff take the fall.

nadler is a train wreck he is judiciary where all this really should be now once intel chair says he has enough to bring a case.

those republican senators in charge. just listen to them. they all say this is dead on arrival.
 
bam864 said:
Lol the common theme from them is "You trust anything the President says" but never explain factually how he is wrong. Trump could say the sun is going to rise in the morning and they would rebuke that somehow. It's almost like they are troll accounts. Add Washington Post to the stated networks and it's spot on. With regards to impeachment I read where Schiff dictates who is allowed to testify, when they are allowed to testify and has already excluded President's council from testifying
Click to expand...


@orangelvis
@hopefultiger13
@Rychek4
@nytigerfan

lets get serious for a moment.

it looks like the moderate democrats that voted for the inquiry (29) may in fact vote for impeachment.

we need to find out where they stand. inquiry doesnt hurt. but voting for impeaching a president on released transcript, that half the population thinks is ok, versus half that thinks he is hitler.

but if they stick to voting for impeachment, it goes over to the senate.

i think the senate has the power to put together a trial committee to investigate the background of this impeachment PRIOR to actually hearing from the house "managers" (Schiff and Nadler)


If Lyndsay is on that committee, I think they will be able to prove without reasonable doubt this is a sham. another hit job.

this committee would get to-

1- call the whistleblower for testimony.

2- call the staffers who helped whistleblower prepare document for testimony.

3- call the person who changed the document to find out why.

4- call the person at the justice dept who this whistleblower originated the claim to find out why justice dept said this whistleblower complaint was hogwash.

anyway, i think they could prove prior and table the bill without vote?

what say you guys



3-
 
appalachiatiger said:
so yea, remember when this started- schiff told pelosi he finally had the evidence to impeach. (whistleblower complaint)

NOTE- remember he said he had direct evidence of donald trump colluded with the putin.

well, once the transcript was released, what was in (whistleblower complaint) did not match the transcript.

thats why the ig and justice dept ignored it when it was reported to the proper channels.

thats how schiffs staff got this. the justice dept said it wasnt real.

anyway, pelosi found out by reading the transcript. schiff didnt think they would release it.

now- everyone knows trump ask the ukrainians to clean up their corruption.

what pelosi didnt realize was that people are,shifting over to why the president ask for this.

this is why biden is really in big trouble. he will have to drop out. thats why bloomberg is entering. they need a moderate.

the only voices that matter now, because we know pelosi passed the torch to shift so she can stay clean and let schiff take the fall.

nadler is a train wreck he is judiciary where all this really should be now once intel chair says he has enough to bring a case.

those republican senators in charge. just listen to them. they all say this is dead on arrival.
Click to expand...
appalachiatiger said:
@orangelvis
@hopefultiger13
@Rychek4
@nytigerfan

lets get serious for a moment.

it looks like the moderate democrats that voted for the inquiry (29) may in fact vote for impeachment.

we need to find out where they stand. inquiry doesnt hurt. but voting for impeaching a president on released transcript, that half the population thinks is ok, versus half that thinks he is hitler.

but if they stick to voting for impeachment, it goes over to the senate.

i think the senate has the power to put together a trial committee to investigate the background of this impeachment PRIOR to actually hearing from the house "managers" (Schiff and Nadler)


If Lyndsay is on that committee, I think they will be able to prove without reasonable doubt this is a sham. another hit job.

this committee would get to-

1- call the whistleblower for testimony.

2- call the staffers who helped whistleblower prepare document for testimony.

3- call the person who changed the document to find out why.

4- call the person at the justice dept who this whistleblower originated the claim to find out why justice dept said this whistleblower complaint was hogwash.

anyway, i think they could prove prior and table the bill without vote?

what say you guys



3-
Click to expand...

The whistleblower lost all credibility when Trump released the transcript. Trump recently spoke about releasing the transcript from a second call with Ukraine to further vindicate. This hoax would totally work if Trump had not released the transcripts because the media would have full control of the narrative. What can the whistleblower testify? If it's not what was said in the transcript would that not be perjury? There's no way it gets through the senate, Mcconell has already stated that.

IMO this entire Ukraine smokescreen was done to overshadow the fact that they are discussing Biden and corruption, similar to how the Russian collusion narrative was done to overshadow the Clinton scandals, which there are many, such as uranium one.

As a result of this impeachment situation all it has really done is bring to light the $1.5 billion Biden situation which helps Trump because now the media is talking about it.

Everything plays right into Trump's hand. This is like a big game of chess going on.
 
Last edited:
Rychek4 said:
I admire your ability to defend someone cheating on their wife despite a moral code. I couldn't do it.
Click to expand...

Well, neither could I cheat on my wife. What's the point of this? I've said many times that I wouldn't want Trump to be my pastor, but, then again, I wouldn't want my pastor to be president. As long as he behaves while executing his duties of the office, that's all I care about. JFK couldn't do it. Clinton couldn't do it. Many other as well.
 
bam864 said:
The whistleblower lost all credibility when Trump released the transcript. Trump recently spoke about releasing the transcript from a second call with Ukraine to further vindicate. This hoax would totally work if Trump had not released the transcripts because the media would have full control of the narrative. What can the whistleblower testify? If it's not what was said in the transcript would that not be perjury? There's no way it gets through the senate, Mcconell has already stated that.

IMO this entire Ukraine smokescreen was done to overshadow the fact that they are discussing Biden and corruption, similar to how the Russian collusion narrative was done to overshadow the Clinton scandals, which there are many, such as uranium one.

As a result of this impeachment situation all it has really done is bring to light the $1.5 billion Biden situation which helps Trump because now the media is talking about it.

Everything plays right into Trump's hand. This is like a big game of chess going on.
Click to expand...

yes trump is winning the chess match. has to give up a few pieces, but is on a path to winning the game.

this is really about the deep state. what we hired trump to dig up and expose. it goes much deeper than clinton and her gang, obama and his gang, bush and his gang.

these gangs overlap. they are unelected govt officials who think they are the law and the policy.

biden family and friends is just but one leak of many.
 
appalachiatiger said:
wow! just wow!!!

read the opening testimony of fiona hill. she left office "a few days BEFORE" the phone call.

anyway- apparently the house judiciary is not part of a judicial action. this congress has gone bananas

no press here-

just read first hand. beats anything cnn or fox has.

View embedded media
Click to expand...


page 21

line 17-24

can prosecuting attorney state that the evidence is already decided of guilt prior to questioning?
 
page 38

line 38 6-10

hill expressly states from july 15th until this deposition that a majority of her opinions were based on "what she read in the press, especially FOX news.
 
Like I said before, the quid pro quo doesn't mean shiit. I EXPECT a President to put pressure on countries that we are giving aid to. I personally don't see a thing wrong with saying "I'm not giving you shiit until you do A".

The problem is that you CAN'T get help from a foreign government against your political rival. It doesn't matter if Biden is guilty or innocent. You can't accept anything of value from a foreign government. Opposition research is a thing of value.

So if Trump said I'm holding up the Aid unless you vote for proposition A in the Security Council meeting, I wouldn't give a shiit. But you can't do what Trump did. It's a violation of Federal Law. You can't say, "do me a favor and investigate my political rival".
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Like I said before, the quid pro quo doesn't mean shiit. I EXPECT a President to put pressure on countries that we are giving aid to. I personally don't see a thing wrong with saying "I'm not giving you shiit until you do A".

The problem is that you CAN'T get help from a foreign government against your political rival. It doesn't matter if Biden is guilty or innocent. You can't accept anything of value from a foreign government. Opposition research is a thing of value.

So if Trump said I'm holding up the Aid unless you vote for proposition A in the Security Council meeting, I wouldn't give a shiit. But you can't do what Trump did. It's a violation of Federal Law. You can't say, "do me a favor and investigate my political rival".
Click to expand...


so what you are saying when you see a political committing a crime, you should ignore it.
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Like I said before, the quid pro quo doesn't mean shiit. I EXPECT a President to put pressure on countries that we are giving aid to. I personally don't see a thing wrong with saying "I'm not giving you shiit until you do A".

The problem is that you CAN'T get help from a foreign government against your political rival. It doesn't matter if Biden is guilty or innocent. You can't accept anything of value from a foreign government. Opposition research is a thing of value.

So if Trump said I'm holding up the Aid unless you vote for proposition A in the Security Council meeting, I wouldn't give a shiit. But you can't do what Trump did. It's a violation of Federal Law. You can't say, "do me a favor and investigate my political rival".
Click to expand...

The problem with your statement is that Trump was not looking for opposition research. There had already been criminal investigations and even trials with convictions regarding Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election. Convictions of a member of their parliament and a law enforcement official. Their sentences stated that they had helped the Clinton campaign actyally dig up dirt of Trump and Manafort. The corruption investigation of Burisma had been going for a while before. It's not Trump's fault that Biden set his son up to receive millions. The POTUS is the chief law enforcement executive in the county and has a constitutional duty to enforce the law. That is not even close to "digging up dirt". You can't dig up dirt if something actually happened already. Fake News will say that that the Biden's have done nothing wrong, but that is a straight up lie.
 
orangelvis said:
The problem with your statement is that Trump was not looking for opposition research. There had already been criminal investigations and even trials with convictions regarding Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election. Convictions of a member of their parliament and a law enforcement official. Their sentences stated that they had helped the Clinton campaign actyally dig up dirt of Trump and Manafort. The corruption investigation of Burisma had been going for a while before. It's not Trump's fault that Biden set his son up to receive millions. The POTUS is the chief law enforcement executive in the county and has a constitutional duty to enforce the law. That is not even close to "digging up dirt". You can't dig up dirt if something actually happened already. Fake News will say that that the Biden's have done nothing wrong, but that is a straight up lie.
Click to expand...

Call it what you want to call it. Trump was looking call in a favor from a foreign government to hurt a political rival. Nothing else matters. Trials convictions whatever. Biden's guilt or not, Clinton's involvement or not. The law has no exceptions and Trump broke the law. Period.
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Call it what you want to call it. Trump was looking call in a favor from a foreign government to hurt a political rival. Nothing else matters. Trials convictions whatever. Biden's guilt or not, Clinton's involvement or not. The law has no exceptions and Trump broke the law. Period.
Click to expand...

so you are saying that trump should wait until after the election to bring that up. after biden is no longer a political rival.

then you are ok with the president asking ukraine to investigate corruption in the energy sector.

but we must wait for sure til biden is done. right.
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Call it what you want to call it. Trump was looking call in a favor from a foreign government to hurt a political rival. Nothing else matters. Trials convictions whatever. Biden's guilt or not, Clinton's involvement or not. The law has no exceptions and Trump broke the law. Period.
Click to expand...

Except when Trump is the target of the foreign dirt digging. Got it.
 
appalachiatiger said:
so what you are saying when you see a political committing a crime, you should ignore it.
Click to expand...

Do you have ANY reading comprehension at all. How many times do I have to say it. If someone breaks the law, lock them up. Period. That goes for Dems and Reps. Too bad you don't feel the same way.
 
orangelvis said:
Except when Trump is the target of the foreign dirt digging. Got it.
Click to expand...

Nope, AGAIN. If someone breaks the law lock them up. Just b/c someone else breaks the law doesn't give Trump the right to do it. PARTICULARLY when you are the President and the head of law enforcement.
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Again, I think you lack understanding of the situation. Rudy is Trump's private lawyer. He gets paid to go where Trump tells him to go, do what Trump tells him to do, and say what Trump tells him to say. Period. He is an extension of Trump.
Click to expand...

yea that did worry me a bit getting personal and govt shyt mixed up.

i went thru the hill testimony. sounds like rudy was working his own agenda., and not the state dept which is good. she never talked to him and had nothing to do with him.

god i read her whole testimony. dam waste of time.
 
hopefultiger13 said:
Nope, AGAIN. If someone breaks the law lock them up. Just b/c someone else breaks the law doesn't give Trump the right to do it. PARTICULARLY when you are the President and the head of law enforcement.
Click to expand...

No argument, except Trump hasn't broken any law. Rudy has been defending the President against the Mueller investigation since he was hired. That includes going to Ukraine to take depositions. Do you not think Trump was going to defend himself? Or, do you think a defense lawyer finding facts is obstruction? Which is it. Rudy has stated that he finished his investigation by May 2019. Rudy's investigation was over before the phone call ever took place, and it began long before Biden ever announced he was running. I believe the only reason Biden ran was for some level of protection. Not going to work. Rudy has the goods on all of this. People forget that Rudy was an awesome prosecutor at SDNY. Why do you think POTUS mentioned CrowStrike in the phone call? Same Oligarch that owns Burisma involved with CrowdStrike and that fake bank. People forget that the POTUS has the right to answer the Mueller Report with his own investigative report. Rudy chose not to release it at the time. This is not going to go well for the dems, rinos, etc.
 
appalachiatiger said:
yea that did worry me a bit getting personal and govt shyt mixed up.

i went thru the hill testimony. sounds like rudy was working his own agenda., and not the state dept which is good. she never talked to him and had nothing to do with him.

god i read her whole testimony. dam waste of time.
Click to expand...

No worries for Rudy. Even if Rudy weren't investigating the POTUS' innocence in the Mueller investigation, it is very common for a POTUS to have back channel diplomacy going on. Every POTUS since George Washington has utilized it.
People forget that the POTUS is the foreign policy of the US. What a POTUS says goes. These carrer appointees think they set policy. Wrong. These people are there for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to carry out the POTUS' policy. The testimony I see from these people is at least an admission of insubordination. The fact that they're colluding to try to impeach the POTUS, rises to the level of a Coup. The next question will be: How many are guilty of TREASON.

Nikki Haley:
https://www.breitbart.com/national-...-tried-to-run-the-country-behind-trumps-back/
 
Last edited:
yea after reading the hill transcript some 400 pages, i found no evidence of any wrongdoing by the president or rudy.

she does have opinions from she developed from watching the news, but a judge would throw her opinions out.
 
im gonna read the other transcript today.

if its as boring as this one, i am officially done spending anymore attention to this non sense.

adam schiff is either a fool or he knows he can use the sound bites to fool americans.

its not fooling the senators.
 
ok news from the ukraine

The future of the transportation of Russian gas to Europe is wide open.

The role of Ukraine, historically the main transit corridor, will change after the current transit contract between Gazprom and Naftogaz Ukrainy expires on 31 December 2019.

Gazprom has already substantially reduced the volumes of gas it transits across Ukraine, and expressed its intention of reducing the level further by means of transit diversification pipelines (Nord Stream, Turkish Stream, etc).

While that strategy is broadly supported by the largest purchasers of Russian gas in Europe, in Brussels there is political opposition, in addition to regulatory barriers to the pipeline projects.

Tensions over these issues have risen sharply as a result of the Ukrainian political crisis of 2014, the annexation of Crimea, and the resulting deterioration of Russia-Ukraine and Russia-Europe political relations.

In contrast to the wealth of commentary that has appeared about the political issues, this paper focuses on the natural gas trade itself. It includes scenarios that allow a comparison of Gazprom’s long-term contractual commitments with possible gas flows in the 2020s through existing and possible future pipeline networks;

it considers the regulatory issues and obstacles to building new large scale infrastructure of the kind Gazprom proposes;

and it looks at the possible commercial and contractual frameworks for future gas transit across,

and gas supply to, Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TigerGrowls

Biden issues preemptive pardons for Milley, Fauci and Jan. 6 committee members

Replies
48
Views
1K
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
CUTiger1977
CUTiger1977
TigerGrowls

Adam Schiff

Replies
24
Views
928
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
T

Trump to Canada...

Replies
145
Views
3K
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
amynhop
amynhop
TigerGrowls

Biden WH Expose

Replies
0
Views
174
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
P

Is there any reason why Trump didnt place his hand on the Bible(s) while taking the oath?

Replies
4
Views
266
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
WapPride
W
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back