HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Ohioboy » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »

Ohioboy

Profile Information

Member since: Mon Jan 9, 2017, 04:35 PM
Number of posts: 1,442

Journal Archives

Tell me this doesn't sound like the end of democracy

Attorney General William Barr has issued new restrictions on opening investigations into politically sensitive individuals or entities, including a requirement that he approve any inquiry into a presidential candidate or campaign.

https://www.npr.org/2020/02/06/803506238/attorney-general-barr-issues-new-rules-for-politically-sensitive-investigations?fbclid=IwAR2gyhFvekQPLYsPksw1kZ_uhWYoadU_WEbL_03P7cSlqcSf-nbEMbYypdU


Sounds to me like Barr will become the sole gate keeper to oversight.

Trump indicated retribution would be coming for his enemies

The whole video is good but 11:50 is where retribution talk starts

Right now Glenn Beck is playing Tulsi Gabbard for a fool

Beck is interviewing Gabbard and has her falling for, and giving credence to the talking point that Democrats 'just hate Trump' and are mad about losing the 2016 election.

Will it become official that the call was not "perfect"?

The House managers proved their case, right? In fact they did it so well new witnesses were not needed in the Senate part of it all. Will that be the official outcome of all this? Will there be an official statement from Roberts or someone in the Senate expressing that Trump's behavior was found inappropriate, just not enough for removal?



A breakdown of false and misleading claims during the so-called "trial"

From the article at link below:


White House counsel Pat Cipollone falsely suggested Republicans were barred from the closed-door depositions conducted by the House intelligence committee. But members of three committees — both Democrats and Republicans — participated.

Jay Sekulow, President Donald Trump’s attorney, falsely said, “During the proceedings that took place before the Judiciary Committee, the president was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses … the right to access evidence and … the right to have counsel present at hearings.” The committee chair invited Trump and his lawyers to participate, but they declined.


Read more
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/false-and-misleading-claims-at-impeachment-trial/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=social-pug&fbclid=IwAR1KqVHtS69AcHL-fm9hgwpGSyyhbQl8UKskvuAlO77Ck3wV-KebIPX2Fk4

Just more proof that Trump is a rotten, incompetent president

We all know Trump has to be lying when he says he did not know Paranas. Certainly by the time those two had taken so many pictures together Trump would have at least been introduced. But, even though he's most likely lying, let's pretend to take Trump at his word.

That would mean:

At a luncheon full of big money donors, some guy Trump didn't even know told him he needed to get rid of the US ambassador to Ukraine. With only hearsay from a guy he didn't know, Trump immediately decides to fire the ambassador (who he shamefully doesn't know) and wants her gone the next day.

You can hear this and many other things that show Trump as an incompetent president willing to be brown- nosed by donors on the now famous Parnas video.

Key board alert! You will hear things on this video that will make you want to vomit.

The cognitive dissonance of the Trump defense

The Trump defense team would have us believe that Trump had some "legitimate" reason for asking another country's leader to open an investigation into corruption. But, how many "legitimate" requests to investigate corruption involve bribing a country's leader by withholding approved aid to said country? That's where the idea of a "legitimate" request doesn't fit with what the Trump defense must admit took place. Where does a "legitimate" request end, and a shake down begin?

Senators basically advised to shut up and just accept any decisions when it comes to military action

This has probably been posted somewhere here already, but I'm posting it now just to make sure. Be sure to listen past the part where he kisses up to Trump. He's a republican and has to do that.


Something doesn't smell right

We are to believe that Iran posed a huge imminent threat, but yet the Iranian response to the assassination of their top general was to fire some rockets that didn't really hit anything?

All of a sudden in Trump's eyes we're even; and he doesn't have to respond. How convenient for Trump that he doesn't have to lose face by not responding after all his bluster. Yep, all good.

Call me a skeptic, but I'm wondering how much of a threat we were actually under to begin with. Certainly all of Iran's "evil" didn't exist in just one individual general.

Does anyone else think there's something suspicious about the way it's all supposedly "well" now?

Did Iran actually take credit for last night's attack that didn't do anything?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next »