Soldato
Say for instance he does and provides no proof to back up his original claim. What will your position be then?
Deflection. Answer my question first.
Say for instance he does and provides no proof to back up his original claim. What will your position be then?
For the very simple reason that it can take months for it to work its way through the courts. Trump would have taken it all the way to the Supreme Court and it would have been smack in the middle of the 2020 election by that time. It's the same reason they didn't go to court over the documents they requested. There is an argument they should have gone to the lowest court, won that case and then not wasted any more time on it. They decided not to bother.
Both Durham and Barr came out a few hours after the IG report and said they disagree with Horowitz's assertions that "no spying occurred"
Durham is the guy that makes sure investigators are doing the job correctly, the IG report was obviously not completely truthful.
Why is it that so difficult to understand?
Why wouldn't you listen to the top dog?
Why did you talk about assassination?
Hmm I wonder if those 2 political appointees could have been trying to give their boss some political cover?? The independent IG (appointed by the Trump administration) is now a liar is he? So are all his staff? Wow the mental gymnastics you perform are incredible. If/when Durham presents this evidence then you can argue it but until then there is no evidence to support spying.
I said "at worst kill" in the post which i think you are referring to. That is what the texts could have implied.
But as i said, i am happy that this was seemingly not the case and it was instead just drunken ramblings.
You have to remember Yovanovitch was told to leave Ukraine because of threats to her “security,”
There is also now a criminal investigation into this as well:
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...al-investigation-into-alleged-threats-against
Do you or do you not believe that this is the way the system is setup?
It was not setup that way specifically for Trump, it's the same for all presidents.
So feel free to answer that as honestly as you can.
Others cannot.
It's not deflection. If he provides genuine proof, why would I dispute? But as I said Trump had been wrong on pretty much all accusations when it comes to Obama. If the proof is there, his seniority is irrelevant as I said.Deflection. Answer my question first.
So you were speculating? Why?
It's not deflection. If he provides genuine proof, why would I dispute? But as I said Trump had been wrong on pretty much all accusations when it comes to Obama. If the proof is there, his seniority is irrelevant as I said.
So again - if he comes up with nothing. What will your position be?
Are you trying to spin this around to say that you are just speculating?
Because i have no problem with that. I don't believe there to be any real proof of your accusation. But sure, you can speculate on it if you want. Doesn't mean Obama actually did it like you said earlier.
The trouble is, unlike me, nothing will seemingly change your view. An independent IG report has come out completely debunking all of it, yet because Trump's own AG (no bias there!) "thinks" there was spying, you still think it happened.
Yea i am winding you up a bit, just be a little more accommodating to other peoples views eh.
Also, i know you think this sounds clever, but this makes no sense.
So please entertain me, what is the answer?
Are you trying to say the Democrats don't actually want more witnesses?!
But there is a big difference between speculation and just outright saying that something is fact/happened.
you have been asked many times so it's up to you!
You literally said that a US ambassador was going to be assassinated, you are in no position to explaining fact/speculation.
Where?
Sorry are you saying that the Dems should have waited months for it to work its way up the federal court system, all the way to the SC? That could have easily meant the investigation was still going on in Aug/Sept 2020 and then the impeachment Sept/Oct with the election in Nov. Yeah that wouldn't cause any political problems would it. If this had happened a year earlier I suspect they would have pursued it through the courts. With the election being so close that simply wasn't an option. There is nothing that says they have to pursue it all the way through the federal courts.
Killed then..
"at worst.."
and at that time, that is what those documents did reveal (and still do, but we do have someone saying they thought the man saying these things was crazy/drunk).
Because of that new information, i am not 100% sure there was such a plot (thankfully).