Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. It can be both, but if they’re going to call it a crime then they have the burden (in the public’s eyes) of proving the criminality of it. That’s a higher and unnecessary burden that makes it much easier for Trump to defend — a lot of legal experts like Preet Bahara (or Renalto Marioto, I forget which) are saying that no prosecutor would bring bribery charges in this case. It muddies the message and it’s unnecessary.
  2. Still trying to distract and deflect from the BS tweet you posted that lied about what Pete said. Not falling for it. You posted a tweet claiming Pete compared Sanders to Trump. The article shows that Pete was talking about Bernie SUPPORTERS and how they were disaffected and angry at the system. Pete was sympathetic to Bernie’s supporters, not attacking Bernie. That tweet lied. And your response to me pointing out that it lied was three stupid memes in a row. Address that.
  3. Yes. But bribery isn’t defined in the Constitution and there would not be a federal bribery statute making it criminal for another 80-100 years. That’s the point. They don’t have to prove the elements of the federal bribery statute that exists today because that statute didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Constitution.
  4. This is the legalese trap that I’ve been warning about. Bribery wasn’t a criminal offense when the Constitution was written. They shouldn’t get bogged down in trying to prove all elements of the federal bribery statute. It’s not necessary.
  5. ^^^This is what BO has become.
  6. No substance, just endless twitter propaganda and lies. That’s what you’ve become. It’s pathetic.
  7. If your posts are any indication, Bernie Bros and Trump cultists share something else in common... You’ll post whatever bulls*** propaganda and lies you think helps your guy. I’m also laughing at the “intellectually dishonest” part of a tweet making a claim that is itself incredibly intellectually dishonest.
  8. Zaid and the whistleblower won’t be testifying. Bill Taylor will.
  9. Do you even read the bulls*** twitter propaganda that you post? From the article... Democratic candidate Pete Buttigieg compared Bernie Sanders’ supporters with fans of President Trump — claiming that both camps include disaffected citizens who seek to change the status quo. The 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, was speaking at a campaign stop in New Hampshire on Friday when he drew a parallel between followers of the diametrically opposed politicians, according to the Washington Examiner. “I think the sense of anger and disaffection that comes from seeing that the numbers are fine, like unemployment’s low, like all that, like you said GDP is growing and yet a lot of neighborhoods and families are living like this recovery never even happened. They’re stuck,” Buttigieg told high school students in in Nashua, N.H. “It just kind of turns you against the system in general and then you’re more likely to want to vote to blow up the system, which could lead you to somebody like Bernie and it could lead you to somebody like Trump. That’s how we got where we are.” ^^^ZOMG HE SAID BERNIE IS JUST LIKE TRUMP!!!!
  10. Can I just add that Godfather of Harlem gets better with each episode?
  11. CNN reporting that Pence aide who was concerned about the Ukraine call will appear to testify tomorrow if subpoenaed. And she’ll definitely be subpoenaed.
  12. This is the type of clownishness that’s the biggest threats to the impeachment effort... Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) went searching for answers regarding Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s faulty memory when he was questioning Taylor. Lieu noted the big gaps in Sondland’s memory when he appeared before the impeachment inquiry, and in a series of questions to Taylor tried to figure out what was behind it. “There was no indication that he was under the influence of alcohol?” Lieu asked Taylor. “There was no indication that he was under any medications that caused short-term memory loss?” Taylor responded dryly: “Not that I know of.”
  13. Where’s Abbott?
  14. Not the hard core Republicans and Trump supporters. They’re not going to change. This is a fight for the middle.
  15. Bro, the entire game here is convincing the general public. Everything about impeachment is going to hinge on how the public reacts to the competing arguments.
  16. More importantly, the people that DO matter -- independents and leaning partisans -- aren't going to be persuaded by bias arguments given all the actual facts and evidence that's emerged. Complaining about the whistleblower is intended to keep the GOP base distracted. It's not going to shift the impeachment numbers.
  17. All of that might be true if the whistleblower were the source of the information. But at this point, unimpeachable witnesses (Vindman, Taylor, etc.) have testified and corroborated the complaint. So the whistleblower doesn't actually matter anymore. It would be like someone in a bank heard specific information about the manager stealing money out of the vault. This person hates the manager with a passion and wants to get him fired. So he puts together all of the information he heard and passes it along to supervisors. The supervisors interview other employees at the bank who don't even know the manager. They all say "yes, he was stealing from the bank, here are videos of him doing it, and here are other people who also saw it." Then the manager says, "okay, I took money from the vault and took it home, but that's not stealing!" After all of that, who cares if the person who originally passed the information along to supervisers hates the manager or not?
  18. He can hear Taylor tell it himself at the hearings next week.
  19. Exactly. The fact that Trump didn’t run it through the State Department, but instead had his personal lawyer working behind the scenes is another strong indication he knew it was corrupt. Also, everybody involved who has testified have all said they viewed it as inappropriate or corrupt.
  20. Excerpts from Taylor’s testimony, BTW... https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191106taylor_transcipt_excerpts38964.pdf ^^^Only 13 pages.
  21. Also this from Bill Taylor. Next week’s public hearing is going to be interesting... Q: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance? A: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation. Q: So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding? A: Yes, sir. Q: Are you aware that quid pro quo literally means this for that? A: I am.
  22. Welp, this is pretty clear. From Bill Taylor’s testimony. Q: Now, my colleague in the minority asked you about ‘quid pro quo.’ And are you a lawyer? A: I am not. I am not, Mr. Chairman. Q: Because he asked you about the legal definition of ‘quid pro quo.’ So you’re not in a position to talk about legal definitions? A: I am definitely not in the position. Q: Okay. A: I don’t speak Latin. Q: And, of course, whether it meets a legal definition of ‘quid pro quo’ or it doesn’t is really irrelevant to what we’re focused on here. But it is your testimony that, hey, you don’t make these public statements about these two political investigations we want, you’re not getting this meeting – you make these statements, you’ll get the meeting; you don’t make these statements, you won’t. Was that your understanding of the state of affairs in July of 2019? A: Yes.
  23. Thanks, jury tampering was the term I was struggling to come up with. I hope that MF’er goes to jail or gets sued into homelessness whichever the case.
  24. So who was the person who came up with it???
  25. How is that not obstruction of justice or some form of witness tampering (yeah, it’s a juror, not a witness)? How is that not patently criminal?