They could not have picked a bigger partisan and they did it for expediency but it will bite the Dems in the rear end.
Now weâre reading the Prezâs mind - we just KNOW that he erased a few words, and we will impeach based on our occult knowing. No evidence necessary. Guilty until proven innocent.
Hillary erased 33,000 emails. Demâs donât care.
This whole farce sickens me and is sooooo bad for America - is that what they want??
What do you all think of the fact that Mr. Trump admitted that he used funds from his charity to promote his political campaign? A judge ordered him to pay $2 million to genuine charities in order to make up for the misuse of funds used by the Donald J Trump Foundation for political purposes.
Many different newscasts have run the story, and as far as I know, Mr. Trump has not declared any of them as having created âfalse newsâ about the issue.
Everyone who realizes that all of this is a demonic tactic of liberal Democrats in a desperate attempt to win the next election.
Don, I know nothing about that. Do you admit he is being railroaded in this impeachment farce?
The liberal media wonât report on the deceitfulness of the Clinton foundation because most people who cross the Clintonâs end up dead.
Well, it could be, but as you would want if the finger was pointed at you, letâs wait and see.
Breitbart spinners can quarrel with those whoâve deeply risked their careers to testify (while Trump loyalists refuse to come and defend him under oath). But my perception is that the consensus among all insiders willing to risk perjury is and will leave little doubt in any GOP Senatorsâ minds.
They see that the insistence is bogus that there was no quid pro quo scheme toward Ukraine: you work on Biden and what happened in Trumpâs election, and then weâll provide the withheld help for your survival. They have and Iâd prognosticate will ultimately widely argue that while this confirms an ugly precedent, we wonât vote that it must be impeached. For each one of them would be politically destroyed if they did. And it soon will be up to independent voters.
Whatâs in the BBC news today, I wonder?
And these stories got me to thinking!
Wouldnât it be interesting, to retrofit the zombies from Z-Hell (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) - with AI - when they arrive?
Now back to the public impeachment inquiry. Time to swear in the first witness! 
This Foundation raised 140 mill when Hill was in power as Secy of State but now the funds have dried up?? Amazingly the leftist media has no interest in WHY if this really was a charity the funds would dry up once Hill was out of power?? Why is the question??
I donât think it was an admission but a settlement , if it could be proved to be criminal the AG of NY State would pursue it in 5 minutes.
1 Like
"An accuser who will not come forward may plausibly be judged to believe that he or she cannot come forward without compromising himself in relation to the criminal law.
That is the situation that now exists in Washington, D.C., a political fortress built around an anonymous accuser in order to create a basis to punish someoneânamely the president. This is a course that historically has been the harbinger of legal and political breakdown of the sort that undercuts public reliance on legal processes and guarantees and therefore justifies extraordinary undertakings in the pursuit of political objectives or even mere acts of revenge. The purpose of forbidding anonymous accusations is to avoid justifying such retributions. Some ancient truths would serve us well in this perilous hour."
" It is obvious that if any individual could command a public hearing for anonymous accusations with no more than a plausible pretext to be believed, such a legal regime would create wide-scale public chaos. Nevertheless, news reporters with no discernible bias against the Trump Administration have widely repeated the partisan claim that there is a legal guarantee of anonymity for the whistleblower. In one case, a Fox News reporter even seemed to be indignant that anyone might doubt the certainty of that interpretation.
Nothing can be more obvious, however, than that the purpose of the whistleblower statute is to indemnify whistleblowersâthat is, to provide legal protections to assure they cannot be punished for coming forward. In other words, the whistleblower statute is based on the expectation that the accusers will not hide behind anonymity precisely because of having the protection of the law."
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/09/anonymous-accusations-invite-political-perils/
Thanks, this principle nicely bolsters my observation! As I argued, while the whistleblowers account is superfluous because itâs all just second hand, itâs the testimony of actual participants on the inside willing to testify and be cross examined under oath that will count with observant independent voters.
None of this has happened yet since Schiff tells the witnesses not to answer questions from Republicans.
1 Like
Exactly! Thatâs what I keep saying. Itâs all been closed door spin. Real independents will wait until the House and Senate go public with the witness and interrogation of the key players, and then they can assess who they think is telling the truth.
But why would there be a need for a settlement, if Trump did nothing wrong?
Try doing an internet search for âTrump ordered to pay two millionâ and you will see the report given my many newscasters. You will find that most of them report that Trump admitted to using funds from his charity to promote his political campaign to become President.
Your misunderstanding is a result of allowing the authority of Google search engine to tailor the results to show a biased and in this case misleading idea that the Prez did something illegal or âiffyâ.
Had you gone past the first 4 pages of results, an interesting fact appears: He was helping a veteranâs charity, and instead got fined in the âhate Trumpâ circus weâve gotten used to.
"In reality, this lawsuit was setoff by the following series of events
- Ahead of the 2016 Iowa caucus, candidate Trump held a fundraiser. The fundraiser raised $2.8 million, which was all given to veterans charities.
- The funds were raised through the Trump Foundation, but campaign staff managed the fundraiser and distributed the funds to charities.
- Liberals decided that these funds counted as campaign contributions (zero percent of which went to the Trump campaign), and a judge agreed helped âfurther Mr. Trumpâs political campaign.â
One hundred percent of the money raised went to charity, and the Trump campaigned covered the entire cost of administering distribution of the funds. But because giving millions of dollars to veterans tends to be good PR for a presidential candidate, a judge decided that this helped further the Trump campaign.
So for his efforts to help veterans, Trump was rewarded with a $2 million fine and the billionth bogus media narrative to plague his presidency.
Maybe one day the media will discover what the Clinton Foundation is.
What do you say to that, Don?
1 Like
People settle all the time to move on not necessarily because of guilt. As Dave said Google searches are skewed to left wing articles dramatically and actually may have impacted 800K votes in the last election & they will try for more in 2020.
Seems to me there are at least 2 different Bobâs? Reasonable Bob and leftist Bob , i wonder if each knows about the other? Does your congregation know about the 2 Bob Wilsonâs?
Sometimes itâs hard to tell, the âleftâ from the 'right". Like didnât this billionaire used to be, a New York City Republican mayor?
This video might help us differentiate, the ârightâ from the âleftâ.