GOD BLESS AND THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!
-
What's pretty weak? The fact the guy you asked me to watch did not provide any details to back up his claim? His claim was unsupported so it has no face value as he presents it. And now you claim maybe it's all secret? And what proof of that do you present? None. Last I knew a court martial is not held in secret. The rules of war do not allow you to shoot suspects in civilian clothes just because you think they may be the enemy. Now had they been identified as such and they were fair game, that's well within the rules. Otherwise our trained snipers would be out of business.
A court martial is conducted much like a criminal trial in that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. It's entirely made up of military officers in the case of an officer on trail. They very well understand how those rules of court martial work. And they know what it takes to prove a murder rather than a killing in the line of duty. So drop all that leftwing/marxist crap. It had nothing to do with being found guilty and being sentenced.
obaMao's "Rules of Engagement" were a result of stupidass globalism, equaling - marxist/leftwing political bigotry because obaMao was a marxist/leftist political bigot.
So, no, I won't drop it. And the civilian was a BOMB MAKER. That was fact. In fact, I believe that whatever order there was to release the bomb maker (obaMao can go to hell).... was an illegal order. Which we both know as fact, you are NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.
And, not only was I a semi-expert on the UCMJ, I was asked early on by commanders, etc, about what part of the UCMJ deals with ...
whatever the subject. That is how I ended up thinking to develop a subject-based arrangement of the entire UCMJ set of documents, with numerical order within subjects. It hadn't been done before, apparently. So, I developed an index of all subjects, published it with the entire set, and per subject, you could easily find the particular UCMJ document you needed. I developed it over months.
The UCMJ is several large volumes. I don't remember how many. I literally have read the ENTIRE UCMJ. and AF regs. and BASE regs. I set it all up with the subject filing.
and, FYI, I used to type up Article 15 and Court-Martial papers. Don't go all "He's a decorated veteran, so you should agree with him and hate Pres Trump Too"... and then discount Col. West's decorated service.
and my claim about "classified evidence"... was just a suggestion, not a declaration of fact. I agree 100% about pardoning these two veterans, based on the complexity of the extenuating circumstances.
and don't try to counter with the "my lai" scandal again. That is completely emotional crap. Not any kind of legitimate comparison in the slightest.
obaMao's "Rules of Engagement" were a result of stupidass globalism, equaling - marxist/leftwing political bigotry because obaMao was a marxist/leftist political bigot.
So, no, I won't drop it. And the civilian was a BOMB MAKER. That was fact. In fact, I believe that whatever order there was to release the bomb maker (obaMao can go to hell).... was an illegal order. Which we both know as fact, you are NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW.
And, not only was I a semi-expert on the UCMJ, I was asked early on by commanders, etc, about what part of the UCMJ deals with ...
whatever the subject. That is how I ended up thinking to develop a subject-based arrangement of the entire UCMJ set of documents, with numerical order within subjects. It hadn't been done before, apparently. So, I developed an index of all subjects, published it with the entire set, and per subject, you could easily find the particular UCMJ document you needed. I developed it over months.
The UCMJ is several large volumes. I don't remember how many. I literally have read the ENTIRE UCMJ. and AF regs. and BASE regs. I set it all up with the subject filing.
and, FYI, I used to type up Article 15 and Court-Martial papers. Don't go all "He's a decorated veteran, so you should agree with him and hate Pres Trump Too"... and then discount Col. West's decorated service.
and my claim about "classified evidence"... was just a suggestion, not a declaration of fact. I agree 100% about pardoning these two veterans, based on the complexity of the extenuating circumstances.
and don't try to counter with the "my lai" scandal again. That is completely emotional crap. Not any kind of legitimate comparison in the slightest.
Wading through most of this the fact remains neither LTC West nor yourself have provided any evidence of either 1. The court martial was held in secret or 2. There was exculpatory evidence. None of the rest of what you say has any effect since it is primarily emotional. Did I ever discount LTC West's service? No. You added that yourself, not I. Did I ever question your own service including experience with UCMJ. No I did not. But the Facts remain as stated. Where is the evidence of secret trail and where is the exculpatory evidence, especially in the 1LT Lorance case where his own men testified against his unlawful orders? Document both and I will read them.
-
cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?
cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?
?
WSS
-
cal I listened to what he said but he does not give what exculpatory evidence he says was withheld against Lorance. That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up with what it was. In Golsteyn's case he says they reopened the case when originally there was not enough evidence to prosecute. That is not at all unusual even in civilian life. If further evidence comes to light which is enough to charge someone, then you reopen and file the charges. Again he does not explain what the evidence was or how he can make that judgement when he is not a part of the case. It all sounded very nice, but lacked any substance. I mostly hear excuses for not being able to separate civilians from warriors. Hmmm, wonder where I ever encountered that before?
?
WSS
?
WSS
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
-
-
?
WSS
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
-
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
-
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
-
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
-
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
-
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
-
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've been watching the impeachment sham and every witness to date has said they know nothing of a quid pro quo.
Morrison, Volker undercut claims of 'quid pro quo,' 'bribery' and 'cover-up' in pivotal day of testimony
Republicans sounded a celebratory note as Democrats' House impeachment inquiry began wrapping up another day of public hearings on Tuesday evening, saying the day's witnesses had served only to repeatedly highlight fundamental problems in the case against President Trump.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's hearing.
Former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison: "No."
U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."
Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., hit the same notes in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukraine's leader: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"
"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.
"And Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"
"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.
The answers underscored a problem facing House Democrats as their impeachment inquiry continues into its second week of public hearings: As more witnesses testify, the more soundbites emerge that may help Republicans and the Trump campaign argue that the proceedings are politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
Faulty, biased, and hysterical claims are not evidence. There is absolutely nobody saying that there is a quid pro quo at all. Not even napoleon vindman said there was. Why bother, indeed, when you are not trying to be the least bit genuine?
Listen to Pense's National Security Advisor.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-national-security-adviser-trump-zelensky-call
Pence's national security adviser says he heard 'nothing wrong or improper' on Trump-Zelensky call
Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser – and the supervisor of one of the people who testified Tuesday in the House’s impeachment inquiry – said he heard “nothing wrong or improper” during the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the impeachment probe.
Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg wrote in a letter released by the White House on Tuesday that he had “no concerns” about the phone call and backed up Jennifer Williams’ testimony from earlier in the day. Williams is a State Department employee detailed to Pence’s office.
“I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call,” Kellogg wrote. “I had and have no concerns.”
Kellogg added: “Ms. Williams was also on the call, and as she testified, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to me, her direct supervisor, regarding the call. In fact, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to any other member of the vice president’s staff, including our chief of staff and the vice president.”
-
Say, he's a highly decorated fellow Vietnam Veteran. Care to re-evaluate, Tex? Admit you are wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Kellogg
Top Combat Infantryman Badge 1st row Army Distinguished Service Medal Silver Star Medal 2nd row Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit w/ one oak leaf cluster -
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Of course it's a waste of my time to add plenty more. Closed minds.
-
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Of course it's a waste of my time to add plenty more. Closed minds.
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Yet you provide us with a link to not only the New York Times but slate.
WSS
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
_ribbon.svg){kind=small}
_ribbon.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login