- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,191
- Reaction score
- 9,689
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
What connections are those?
Joseph Cofer Black.
What connections are those?
The quote from McConnell is a dishonest one as its intent is to deceive and mask what they actually had done. The key phrase in the McConnell quote is "with unresolved questions of executive privilege that would require protracted litigation" The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was presiding over the trial. If - and I say IF since Trump had not invoked the privilege - Trump were to invoke executive privilege - The Chief Justice was right there to rule on it. As you know there is not such thing as executive privilege to further or hide a crime..
Irrelevant here as no crime was alleged.
Joseph Cofer Black.
and what do you maintain he did?
I don't maintain anything, he was a CIA man and named as an NSC advisor for Romney in 2011 during his campaign. He was on the board at Burisma at the same time Hunter Biden was.
so what?
No one is quite as willfully blind as you.
so what is the big deal with this guy? Did he see Elvis a few years ago at the Burger King in Kalamazoo?
Burisma was buying influence. Duh.
So what?
Abuse of power and covering it up with obstruction tactics is the crime Trump is accused of. .
That’s enough to investigate.
Neither are crimes. That's why no crime was alleged in the articles of impeachment. Crimes are defined by statute and would of required that each element of the crimes definition be shown with evidence. The Dems certainly didn't want to try and do that so they went with abuse of power that can be defined anyway they like.
So what?
So you are okay with influence peddling---IE corruption. Good to know.
What does that have to do with Trump being acquitted as the topic of this thread?
He wanted to look into corruption in Ukraine, specifically Burisma, which it appears was buying influence---which can be defined as corruption.
Goes to justify his actions as necessary policy.
That nonsense has been proven to be crap. Trump official after Trump official testified before the House Committee that it was all a sham and Trump only wanted the announcement of an investigation that he could use for his own political domestic purposes. Trump has never shown he cares about corruption unless he himself benefits.
On Ukraine scandal, GOP tries to revive bogus '''corruption''' argument
Rachel Maddow has no credibility, she actually has less credibility than you. I just connected the dots for you. Like I said, willful blindness.
What exactly did she say that is factually incorrect?
The only dots you tried to connect were on the far right side of the page and have never been proven true.
Its an opinion piece!
Filled with facts.
So what did she say that is factually incorrect?
And you have two other sources in my post which give you information as well.
Its an opinion piece!
Filled with opinion, you backed an opinion piece with two other opinion pieces which have suggest and claim in them. They AREN'T factual, which was my point.