Russia bounty on US troops

#651
#651
Sandman 423 said:
I wasn't talking about Snowden. I was talking about his relationship with russia and how putin thought so little of his leadership that he expanded his empire.
Click to expand...
Obama's directives were too soft on Russia, no doubt about it. He mishandled several things related to foreign policy, especially post-Arab spring. Trump is even softer on Russia than Obama was and Putin appears to be empowered by that.
 
#652
#652
titansvolsfaninga said:
Click to expand...


It’s oddly humorous watching disgruntled, kicked to the curb, hate filled ex employees throw hissy fits to try and get revenge on their old boss. It’s not like they’d have any ulterior motives or an agenda in play.🤦‍♀️

It’s even more humorous watching all the POTUS haters slurp it all up and lick the bowl.🤣
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider, tennvols77 and ajvol01
#653
#653
clarksvol00 said:
You're correct, I can call it the BJ impeachment and that was not the actual charge. You're correct the charge was lying about it. I find it absurd that it became the focus of the Whitewater investigation.
Click to expand...

Is it absurd to investigate when a third party hand delivers you tapes proving the POTUS lied under oath? Starr had these tapes dropped in his lap by Linda Tripp, of conversations between her and Monica Lewinsky, that proved Clinton lied under oath in his deposition for the Paula Jones case. No made up charges, no one of any political relevance even digging this crap up. Was Starr supposed to just ignore evidence brought to him by a third party that proved the POTUS had committed a crime? This is why I cannot understand the butthurt by the left when it comes to the Clinton impeachment. Whitewater was a big nothing that was leading nowhere, but how can anyone blame the Republicans for the actions of Linda Tripp? That's what is absurd. Between the stain on the dress and her conversations with Tripp, Monica obviously had a problem keeping her mouth shut. So blame Tripp, or blame Lewinsky, or hell, blame Bill for committing perjury, but how it becomes the fault of the Republicans is beyond me. It amazes me that some seem to think that real, undeniable evidence that the POTUS committed a crime should have been ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77, Rickyvol77 and StarRaider
#654
#654
DynaLo said:
It’s oddly humorous watching disgruntled, kicked to the curb, hate filled ex employees throw hissy fits to try and get revenge on their old boss. It’s not like they’d have any ulterior motives or an agenda in play.🤦‍♀️

It’s even more humorous watching all the POTUS haters slurp it all up and lick the bowl.🤣
Click to expand...
They’re conservative patriots who hated Trump from the beginning. It’s why they bother Trump so much.
 
#655
#655
BowlBrother85 said:
You are ascribing motives to an unknown origin. It is entirely possible that these "leakers" are just concerned citizens, who believe that sufficient evidence exists to act upon this intelligence, and they are troubled because that isn't happening. There doesn't have to be a political agenda behind leaking. Who is the most famous leaker in modern history? Daniel Ellsberg, right? He did what was right and needed to be done. He was a patriot.
Click to expand...
What we’ve seen is leak after leak of classified information for nearly 4 years in attempts to remove Trump by any means necessary.

If you can’t admit this, that’s no surprise.

Not sure how you can justify the epidemic of criminal leaks we’ve seen during the Trump administration by bringing up Daniel Ellsberg. It’s just ridiculous. The law doesn’t matter in the age of Trump because orange man bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, tennvols77 and StarRaider
#656
#656
hUTch2002 said:
I don’t disagree that it really should’ve been between Bill and Hillary and not something on display for the country but Dems can’t condemn Trump as someone of low morals or someone that doesn’t act “Presidential” and then ignore or make excuses for Clinton. I’m not saying you are doing that but I’ve seen it from some.
Click to expand...
There is a reason it didn't stay between Bill and Hillary. People tend to ignore the sequence of events. Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case had nothing to do with Whitewater. That's when he lied under oath, denying a relationship between himself and Monica. Monica's "friend" then taped conversations she had with Monica about said relationship, showing that Clinton had lied under oath, and dropped them in Ken Starr's lap. In the face of overwhelming evidence, what was Starr supposed to do?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#657
#657
BowlBrother85 said:
Obama's directives were too soft on Russia, no doubt about it. He mishandled several things related to foreign policy, especially post-Arab spring. Trump is even softer on Russia than Obama was and Putin appears to be empowered by that.
Click to expand...
Sources?
 
#658
#658
BowlBrother85 said:
Just about all of the Republicans/conservatives commenting on this right now, seem much more concerned with discovering the identity of the source behind the leaks, than they are with the veracity of the intelligence being leaked. That is very telling about where their allegiances truly rest. It's party over country.
Click to expand...
If you don't believe both sides put party before country you're fooling yourself. This is not unique to Republicans. Democrats do it to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#660
#660
Trump is an idiot. But those denying it are no different than those who refused to acknowledge Obama was an idiot too. Both have done shady **** that fan boys on each side tried to defend. Our country deserves better than the losers we continue to elect(and given our choices will continue to elect).
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and StarRaider
#662
#662
Weezer said:
There is a reason it didn't stay between Bill and Hillary. People tend to ignore the sequence of events. Clinton's deposition in the Paula Jones case had nothing to do with Whitewater. That's when he lied under oath, denying a relationship between himself and Monica. Monica's "friend" then taped conversations she had with Monica about said relationship, showing that Clinton had lied under oath, and dropped them in Ken Starr's lap. In the face of overwhelming evidence, what was Starr supposed to do?
Click to expand...
I understand that. I’m just saying that if it were possible to stay between those two I would’ve been ok for it to have done so. I don’t believe a person should be kicked out of office due to something like that alone. That’s all.
 
#663
#663
hUTch2002 said:
I understand that. I’m just saying that if it were possible to stay between those two I would’ve been ok for it to have done so. I don’t believe a person should be kicked out of office due to something like that alone. That’s all.
Click to expand...
The reason it couldn't stay between the two is that Paula Jones was suing him for sexual harassment. His penchant for infidelity was a part of the case. And, as previously noted, it wasn't the affair itself that brought about his impeachment. Lying about it under oath, and directing Monica to lie about it as well(perjury and obstruction) were the reasons he was impeached. If he had told the truth under oath, then I'd say there was no legal basis for impeachment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and hUTch2002
#666
#666
Weezer said:
The reason it couldn't stay between the two is that Paula Jones was suing him for sexual harassment. His penchant for infidelity was a part of the case. And, as previously noted, it wasn't the affair itself that brought about his impeachment. Lying about it under oath, and directing Monica to lie about it as well(perjury and obstruction) were the reasons he was impeached. If he had told the truth under oath, then I'd say there was no legal basis for impeachment.
Click to expand...
Throughout the impeachment hearings of Trump last November, Republicans were quick to say that no impeachment should strictly be down party lines... but that is exactly what the impeachment of Bill Clinton had been in December of 1998.
 
#668
#668
carlos86 said:
Click to expand...

"There is a mind boggling level of detail here on the mechanics of the Russian bounty program in Afghanistan. ..."

That's funny. I thought someone said there wasn't enough corroborating evidence to even trouble the President with it? There seems to be a disconnect somewhere.
 
#669
#669
BowlBrother85 said:
Throughout the impeachment hearings of Trump last November, Republicans were quick to say that no impeachment should strictly be down party lines... but that is exactly what the impeachment of Bill Clinton had been in December of 1998.
Click to expand...
Which speaks more to the Democrats staying loyal to party over rule of law. Clinton had clearly perjured himself. There is no real argument that he didn't, and he eventually even admitted to it. And when it got to the Senate, the Democrats voted down party lines. Republicans did not. Ten Republicans voted against conviction on perjury and five voted against conviction on obstruction. Personally, I think the Clinton impeachment and Senate trial set a vey high precedent on what it takes to remove a POTUS from office, and left no room for the Dems to bitch about their failed attempt to oust Trump. Trump may be a horrible person and an idiot to boot, but there were no legitimate grounds to remove him from office. I wish the left had spent that time looking for a better candidate and building them up for this next election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77
#670
#670
My one question is why Russia apparently payed in American cash rather than their own currency? If they were sloppy enough to leave a trail anyway, why not pay in rubles?
 
#672
#672
Weezer said:
My one question is why Russia apparently payed in American cash rather than their own currency? If they were sloppy enough to leave a trail anyway, why not pay in rubles?
Click to expand...
carlos86 said:
Rubles are garbage in Afghanistan. 1 ruble is equal to 1.09 Afghani. 1 dollar is equal to 76 afghani.
Click to expand...
@carlos86 is correct. The U.S. dollar is kept by most global central banks in reserves and a large share of international transactions are done with U.S. currency. There is considerable safety in the U.S. dollar.
 
#673
#673
BowlBrother85 said:
@carlos86 is correct. The U.S. dollar is kept by most global central banks in reserves and a large share of international transactions are done with U.S. currency. There is considerable safety in the U.S. dollar.
Click to expand...

The Afghanis who worked at the bazaars use to badger use to buy stuff from them because they knew all they needed was one or two customers they were set for the day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top