Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Pencil Neck admits the obvious
Date:	10/14/2019 9:43:05 AM

So let's recap.  For two years Pencil Neck Schiff said he had the goods on Trump collusion but never produced them and Mueller blasted that lie right out of the water.  Simultaneously they tried obstruction but Mueller likewise failed to deliver the goods.  Now we have the Ukraine call with an alleged quid pro quo (something schemed up by Schiff and a deep state Biden supporter) that has now been likewise blown right out of the water.  So what does Pencil Neck say now?  You don't need a quid pro quo to impeach the President.  And why is he saying it?  Because of the release of the transcript of the call, all the secret testimony behind closed doors and declarations made by Ukranian officials have blown that lie out of the water in a very bigly way.  And I can assure whatever preconditions for the call related to the investigation of where the Russia collusion lie came from.....the Biden's are just a nice add-on twofer.  Imagine our future if a President can be impeached for asking another country to meet its obligations under a treaty signed by a former President of the other party to assist in the investigation of meddling in our elections.  That is what they are proposing.

So old Pencil Neck is now saying that the reason for opening the impeachment inquiry no longer matters.  In essence what this dirtbag, pile of bovine excrement is saying is that we don't actually need a reason for impeachment.  We're just gonna do it because that's what our foaming at the mouth, TDS suffering base is demanding.  Putin and our other enemies are laughing themselves silly at how amazingly wonderful their useful idiots in the Democrat party and the govt media complex have been as their lap dog water carriers.  Whoever dreamed up this tactic to so sow discord and reduce confidence in our elections has probably been awarded the Order of Lenin medal and given a nice dacha on the Baltic.....and rightly so.  Democrats must be so proud.....heck, Putin ought to award them and our media the Order of Lenin, they deserve it.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Pencil Neck admits the obvious
Date:	10/14/2019 9:58:55 AM (updated 10/14/2019 9:59:18 AM)

Timing is probably more about reports that the FISA report (and apparently then some ) is coming out this Friday.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Pencil Neck admits the obvious
Date:	10/14/2019 10:13:45 AM

It's going to be interesting to watch how the media covers these reports.  I am betting they are going to classify it as old news and a distraction from the real crimes of Trump acting as chief law enforcement officer and wanting to get to the bottom of the fake Russia collusion story.  I can already see the headlines.  "Republicans Pounce on IG Report to Distract from Trump's Impeachable Crimes."  They are so predictable.  That the IG report and Durham's work are likely going to uncover a deep state coup attempt against a duly elected President is not important.  What is important is to impeach Trump regardless of a lack of a real reason.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Pencil Neck admits the obvious
Date:	10/14/2019 12:29:55 PM

I am not getting my hopes up for any indictments.  They all protect their own.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Pencil Neck admits the obvious
Date:	10/14/2019 12:37:33 PM

Don't get me wrong.  I know for sure the IG report will likely not call for indictments because it can only address current Federal employees.  As for Durham, there is a scant amount of hope that if crimes were committed he will recommend indictments.  Am not sure if he has the power to empanel a grand jury or whether that has to be a separate process through DOJ.  If it's the latter then there is zero chance form indictments.  We will simply get a determination that DOJ has elected not to prosecute.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	MM is obviously getting
Date:	10/14/2019 2:09:11 PM

all his information from the nut case conspiracy Internet sites such as Infowars.  Evan Fox is beginning to see the hand-writing on the wall that the Trump base continues to believe will disappear as if it were invisible ink!  Keep digging and keep whistling MM et al.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Get educated Archie
Date:	10/14/2019 2:41:10 PM

He said it on Meet the dePressed this weekend.  Him saying this is defacto proof there was none because that was the reason for starting this nonsense in the first place and if true, would have been a much stronger argument for impeachment.  But alas, he now realizes it is yet another in a long list of dead ends and fake news and lies so he is setting the stage to continue this political witch hunt into 2020 and to deflect from the pending IG and Durham reports.  I've never read anything on Infowars but I can listen to Pencil Neck himself.  You ought to do the same or continue in blissful ignorance that they finally got him.  Your choice.....reality or insanity.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/13/schiff_there_doesnt_need_to_be_a_quid_pro_quo_for_ukraine_call_to_be_an_impeachable_offense.html

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	I watched MTP
Date:	10/14/2019 6:21:34 PM

too so l obviously l heard the same words as you but interpret them completely differently.  I can only assume that one of us does not have a very firm grasp of English.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	ARCH-ILL
Date:	10/14/2019 7:14:33 PM

Guess which one has a grasp on reality......most of us know which one!!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I watched MTP
Date:	10/15/2019 8:16:43 AM (updated 10/15/2019 9:30:33 AM)

And yet you accused me of getting this news from somewhere else.  So you heard him say that there's no need for a quid pro quo for impeachment to move forward?  So tell us Archie, why would he say that?  Why was that important enough for him to take that ridiculous position on a national news show?  Why is he moving the goal post for impeachment if he has the goods on Trump vis-a-vis a quid pro quo?

If you come to any other conclusion than mine based on everything we know, that all the leaks from the behind closed door meetings are exculpatory for the President, that Ukraine has denied any pressure or quid pro quo, that they believed at the time of the call and for some time afterward that the funding would be approved and on and on and on, then I would agree with you that one of us has a comprehension problem.....and it isn't me.  But I live in the world of facts, logic and reason and you live in the world of emotion and TDS.  Come back to reality Archie.....Trump is not going to be impeached for this Ukraine call and if he is, he will not be convicted in the Senate because nothing he has done would justify either.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	The law says
Date:	10/16/2019 10:14:51 PM

it is illegal to request information on a political opponent from a foreign source in order to influence an American election...period.  It does not require a quid pro quo (though in this case those of us who do grasp English see an obvious implied quid pro quo), it does not even have to be a request for ''negative'' information.  Bottom line...by Trump's own admission he broke the damn law!

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	The law says
Date:	10/16/2019 10:21:58 PM

Please name the law and provide its text that supports your claim. 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	The law says
Date:	10/17/2019 8:15:27 AM

So Hillary and the DNC broke the law with the Steele Dossier?  Good to know.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are wrong
Date:	10/17/2019 8:43:23 AM

Please provide the language in the statute that includes the word information.  It is illegal to accept direct contribution or something of value.  Information is not what was contemplated in the law.  What was contemplated being of value would be for example running ads directly in support of a candidate or in opposition to a candidate.  If foreign information were illegal pretty much every President would be guilty as would a great many in the Senate and Congress and you would have to argue that Hillary Clinton should be in prison for the Fusion GPS work.  Am interested in hearing of anyone indicted for the Steele Dossier.

Archie, your govt school education has failed you once again.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	You are wrong
Date:	10/17/2019 8:50:10 AM (updated 10/17/2019 8:50:51 AM)

But that is different because she laundered the money through several people/organizations to hide the paper trail before to pay a foreigner to get the foreign dirt on a opposition canidate to meddle in our election.

So as you can clearly see it is like comparing basketball field goals and football bats - the different is the laundering of money to be sent to a foreign person for the dirt.  You can not just come out and say things.  You have to do it on the down low - sneak around, launder money before it becomes legal - well that and you have to involve your minions in the intelligence community to weaponize it.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are wrong
Date:	10/17/2019 10:56:55 AM

Yeah, I don't hear anyone, Democrat or Republican, calling for the three Senators that threatened Ukraine funding to be charged with a crime.  And I don't hear anyone calling for Joe Biden to indicted for the crony capitalism.  I am willing to let the Democrat primary voter decide whether they approve of that corruption or not and whether they want to hold Trump to one standard and their own candidates to another much lower standard.  Looking at the polls and seeing Crazy Uncle Joe's debate performance it seems to me he is tanking so there may be that to consider.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	You are wrong
Date:	10/17/2019 11:28:08 AM

I have a feeling that they do not want to have to defend Biden as part of the Obama administrations illegal spying efforts when a lot more comes out.  Better to have someone not a part of that *scandal free* administration.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Hey cupcake
Date:	10/18/2019 4:24:49 PM

Since when did information of any sort that alters the chances in an election considered to be of no value to at least one side?  The statute does not define value but on numerous cases in the past the Election Commission and the courts have opined that information has value!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	[USC02]52 USC 30121 (a)(2)
Date:	10/18/2019 4:51:27 PM (updated 10/18/2019 4:57:24 PM)

which reads: 

"it shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive any contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value from a foreign national."

there are numerous court and election law decisions that have made it clear that "anything", including information, that has a value vis a vis an election is prohibited...period! If you were running for the local school board and you accepted information from a local US citizen that your opponent had been caught smoking pot in the high school boiler room in 1974 that would be potential of value to your campaign and it would be legal if somewhat beside the point for 2019.  Now if that information came from an illegal immigrant who was a citizen Mexico it would not be legal.  Therefore, I am pretty sure that if Donald Trump solicited negative info about an an opponent past or present or future from a Ukraine citizen he was breaking the law referenced above.  Please also note that the law does not even mention one way or the other whether there is any payment for the "thing of value".

For anybody that is willing to take off their blinders and throw away their talking points and look at the reality of the event it is pretty cut and dried.  It can be argued that what Trump did does not rise to the impeachment level of "crimes and misdemeanors" and I just might agree with you that it did not...but the sob broke the damn law...period!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	I'm so glad you posted this
Date:	10/19/2019 9:46:42 AM

I have been waiting for one of you to post this.  Here is the actual statute:

(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for—

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	You are either kidding or unable to read English
Date:	10/19/2019 10:55:14 PM

The part that says the prohibition includes ''Anything of value''.......

Name:	Lifer -	Reply
Subject:	You are either kidding or unable to read English
Date:	10/20/2019 6:26:23 AM

So he is planning an outdoor rally and checks the weather report. Under your intertpretation the weather reporter is making a contribution because he/she/it/they just provided something of value, a weather report. You are too dumb to realize how dumb you are.  Even Forrest Gump knows he isn't a 'smart man'.  So using liberals circular logic you are dumber than Forrest Gump.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	BTW MM
Date:	10/20/2019 10:08:19 AM

Do you pay your cable bill?  Did your parents get your Encyclopedia Brittannica for free?  On your trip to Italy did you simple pick up a guide book or map and walk away?  You are making a completely illogical argument that ''anything of value'' does not include information!  Since you are the one making a ludicrous claim why don't you send us examples of court opinions supporting your claim that the law did not intend to include information to be ''of value''? 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	You are the one unable to read English
Date:	10/21/2019 8:22:10 AM

No, I read it correctly.  Anything of value is understood to be monetary value, at least to those of us with a brain.  If information were indeed covered under this statute pretty much every member of Congress would be indicted.  I ask you again, show me one U.S. citizen that has been indicted for accepting information from a foreign national under this law.  Just give me one.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	This is as stupid a comment as you could make
Date:	10/21/2019 8:27:07 AM

Archie, I have maintained that there are zero examples of someone being indicted under this law for receiving information from a foreign national.  The absence of an indictment is proof you silly little man.  Has Hillary been indicted for the Steele Dossier?  Were the three Democrat Senators indicted under this statute for explicitely threatening Ukraine with funding unless the dig up dirt on Trump?  Was Biden indicted for threatening Ukraine funding to prevent his son's slush fund ending and the political damage it would have caused him?  All these are very well known and documented examples of what you claim to be a crime with zero indictments.  Man, your inability to think logically is truly scary.  Can I get a list of buildings you've designed cause I want to make sure I never enter one.  It has to be unsafe.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	List them
Date:	10/21/2019 8:28:27 AM

I have asked you repeatedly to prove this claim with specific indictments even.....not even convictions.....just an indictment.  You've made the claim so prove it.