US Erection 12 *AND* 16 *AND* 20 *AND* 22 *AND* 24

[Strangelove]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... ilhan-omar

President Trump unloaded on Joe and Hunter Biden over their Ukrainian business dealings in Minneapolis on Thursday evening -- at one point bringing the crowd to its feet by charging that Biden's only useful trait as vice president was his preternatural ability to "kiss Barack Obama's ass"

Trump cited a new report in The Washington Examiner that the whistleblower at the center of Democrats' impeachment push had worked with Biden.

The president also derided the Biden campaign for aggressively seeking to convince Facebook and The New York Times, as well as all major television networks, not to cover what it called "conspiracy theories" about potential Biden corruption.

"The Bidens got rich -- and that is substantiated -- while America got robbed," Trump said. "Sleepy Joe and his friends sold out America. ... And in a brand new report, just came out as I'm walking on the stage, it turns out that when Joe Biden was vice president -- he worked with the so-called whistleblower. This is nothing more than a partisan witch hunt, sabotage, and I'm sure they're going to say, 'totally unsubstantiated.'"

As the crowd erupted into applause, Trump remarked, "Isn't it much better when I go off script? So much better."

Watch the 3-minute video if for nothing else: The entertainment value!

There has never been a Prez like this and there never will be again after 2024, we should all enjoy the moment.

WHAT A GUY!!!

[Topper]

That's deplorable.

[5thhorseman]

How is any of that even relevant?

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

[2Fingers]

How is any of that even relevant?

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

Truth does not matter to some.

[Topper]

How is any of that even relevant?

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

[rats19]

How is any of that even relevant?

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

Truth does not matter to some.

Amen to that brother

[5thhorseman]

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

Second or thirdhand evidence was permissible to be submitted in a Disclosure of Urgent Concern.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

Sure, but the ICIG didn't have a problem with it so we're past that now. You're flogging a dead horse.

[Topper]

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

Second or thirdhand evidence was permissible to be submitted in a Disclosure of Urgent Concern.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

Sure, but the ICIG didn't have a problem with it so we're past that now. You're flogging a dead horse.

Did the ICIG know the potential for bias or has that just come to light?

Whistle blower strikes me more as a duck than a horse.

[5thhorseman]

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

Second or thirdhand evidence was permissible to be submitted in a Disclosure of Urgent Concern.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

Sure, but the ICIG didn't have a problem with it so we're past that now. You're flogging a dead horse.

Did the ICIG know the potential for bias or has that just come to light?

Whistle blower strikes me more as a duck than a horse.

Does it really matter now? Are you suggesting the clock be turned back and the ICIG does a re-evaluation? Not possible without a time machine.

In any case, it turns out the whistleblowers information was factual, so like I said, the whistleblowers motivation is irrelevant now. It's with Congress and you can debate about they way it's being handled there.

The concerns with whistleblowers potential motivation is just griping and grasping at straws. Debate the facts of the case!

[Topper]

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

Second or thirdhand evidence was permissible to be submitted in a Disclosure of Urgent Concern.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

Sure, but the ICIG didn't have a problem with it so we're past that now. You're flogging a dead horse.

Did the ICIG know the potential for bias or has that just come to light?

Whistle blower strikes me more as a duck than a horse.

Does it really matter now? Are you suggesting the clock be turned back and the ICIG does a re-evaluation? Not possible without a time machine.

In any case, it turns out the whistleblowers information was factual, so like I said, the whistleblowers motivation is irrelevant now. It's with Congress and you can debate about they way it's being handled there.

The concerns with whistleblowers potential motivation is just griping and grasping at straws. Debate the facts of the case!

admissibility is the issue

[rats19]

If only trump would have released the actual transcript of the phone call...

[5thhorseman]

The problem is that the whistle blower's statement is all 3rd hand information. The whistle blower never heard the phone call, only heard water cooler chatter about it.

Second or thirdhand evidence was permissible to be submitted in a Disclosure of Urgent Concern.

In that case, credibility, conflict of interest and bias do matter.

Sure, but the ICIG didn't have a problem with it so we're past that now. You're flogging a dead horse.

Did the ICIG know the potential for bias or has that just come to light?

Whistle blower strikes me more as a duck than a horse.

Does it really matter now? Are you suggesting the clock be turned back and the ICIG does a re-evaluation? Not possible without a time machine.

In any case, it turns out the whistleblowers information was factual, so like I said, the whistleblowers motivation is irrelevant now. It's with Congress and you can debate about they way it's being handled there.

The concerns with whistleblowers potential motivation is just griping and grasping at straws. Debate the facts of the case!

admissibility is the issue

Admissibility of what? The hearsay statement of the whistleblower? Please. That was just a complaint to the ICIG, and was valid in the context of the Disclosure of Urgent Concern. Afaik, the whistleblower's statement is not being submitted as evidence in the impeachment investigation.

The evidence against Trump includes the transcript of his call with the Ukranian president, which is clearly not hearsay, and is admissable. We are past the whistleblower now.

[Per]

This:

How is any of that even relevant?

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

+ + +

[Per]

Couple of minions going down:

Two Florida businessmen tied to U.S. President Donald Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani have been arrested on allegations of campaign finance violations resulting from a $325,000 US donation to a political action committee supporting Trump's re-election.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani, were arrested Wednesday night trying to flee the country with one-way tickets at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, according to Geoffrey Berman, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. No destination was disclosed.

The men made a brief federal court appearance in Alexandria, Va., and were remanded in custody, as they were deemed a flight risk.

Parnas and Fruman were arrested on a four-count indictment that includes charges of conspiracy, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsification of records.The men had key roles in Giuliani's efforts to get government officials in Ukraine to investigate business dealings by former vice-president Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the war-torn former Soviet republic.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/florida-m ... -1.5316093

Stay tuned! More to follow!

[Strangelove]

How is any of that even relevant?

Relax, no one said they were going to try to put an end to the silly "investigation" based on the fact the whistleblower is a swamp thing.

But I'd say it's "relevant" in that it shows Lord Trump really was investigating corrupt swamp things.

(as opposed to the whistleblower accusation: Trumpy was pressuring Zelensky to help frame an innocent man: Evil Joe Biden)

(do you see the irony here btw in that part: TRUMP trying to frame an innocent man?)

Even if the whistleblower had ulterior motives, isn't all that matters is whether the activity he brought to light is true and whether it warrants impeachment? The whistleblower could have acted on Biden's direction for all I care; it doesn't affect the truth (or not) of whether Trump committed impeachable acts.

The whistleblower/Dems said the transcript of the phone call would prove your "impeachable acts".

Trump was lightning fast in producing said transcript (did not have to) and the transcript showed NO "impeachable acts".

Now the Dems are playing their silly "investigation" games, just like with the Russian collusion game.

Remember that one?

Now let me get this straight 5th...

You desperately want Lord Trump investigated because you care about truth, justice, and the American way

... but you don't give a flying fuck how crooked Prez-candidate/ex-VP Joe, the whistleblower, and the Dems may be!