but if it was?
This is uncharacteristically dense of you, pilt.
Yes his opening statement was a little too well prepared for the inevitable lunch break leak, while carefully concealing testimony with the actual answers to actual questions by people who actually proved how full of shit he is - if you ask me
FIFY
Lots of "smart money" in companies that have more debt than ChesapeakeEh, undoubtedly at its daily volume, many understand it as a lotto.
***Edit: or a potential high percentage mover for scalping. <--- Likelier scenario given aforementioned volume.
But, to your point, smart money, afraid of debt, got out a while ago. Hence where CHK is today.
Worth reading again pilt5. That even though quid pro quo clearly didn't happen, I'm not at all sure how if it did it would be a crime. Foreign policy negotiations are virtually always quid pro quo and investigating the evident corruption from the 2016 election is well within POTUS' responsibility and purview.
No need, I already know I'm dealing with the shoot someone on 5th avenue crowdWorth reading again pilt
OK. If it was, how is that a crime? Is there a law being broken?but if it was?
There you have it folksOK. If it was, how is that a crime? Is there a law being broken?
How does a Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation that says "not a transcript, just a summary" become a verbatim transcript? More Trump magic?1. (and most importantly) That he's part of the coordinated whistleblower project. Uses the same language and everything.
2. That everyone he talked to told him he was barking up the wrong tree as he tried to create an electronic trail of being super duper concerned about quid pro quo.
3. That Ratliffe destroys him in testimony we aren't allowed to see (red flag to the least bit intellectually curious)
4. That we already have the transcript of the phone call - I know you think it's a summary, but you are a retard..
5. That even though quid pro quo clearly didn't happen, I'm not at all sure how if it did it would be a crime. Foreign policy negotiations are virtually always quid pro quo and investigating the evident corruption from the 2016 election is well within POTUS' responsibility and purview.
You know damn well it's a political stunt. You dropped the mask and even admitted that to some degree recently. If you want to convince yourself this is FINALLY FINALLY what is going get him and he won't even be the nominee, knock yourself out.
#bronzed.
Yes his opening statement was a little too good if you ask me
Lol follow alongReally or is that how it’s being portrayed by Democrats? Since you were not in the room, you didn’t see video and you do not have access to the transcripts you know nothing but what Democrats want you to know. Do you enjoy being manipulated?
There you have it folks
Then you have to explain how quid pro quo is a crime. Is it because it is a "wink wink, nod nod" agreement rather than one in written form with the consideration expressly specified? I'm just a simple transactional attorney, so you'll need to help me with this criminal law stuff.There you have it folks
Ask Congress, who appropriated the money.I get that the left is using this as something to get Trump on but do you really think we give billions of dollars to foreign countries without expecting something in return?
Ask Congress, who appropriated the money.
LolWhy don’t we ask Obama, he sent millions in cash in the middle of the night.
We all know that Hunter Biden being hired to that board right after Biden was named to be the point person on Ukraine is purely coincidental. There's a big demand forNo need, I already know I'm dealing with the shoot someone on 5th avenue crowd
Is it your position that trading release of funding for investigation of a political rival is not impeachable?Then you have to explain how quid pro quo is a crime. Is it because it is a "wink wink, nod nod" agreement rather than one in written form with the consideration expressly specified? I'm just a simple transactional attorney, so you'll need to help me with this criminal law stuff.
Don't know. That's why I'm trying to understand if there is a crime under pilt's hypothetical since there has to be a crime for impeachment.Is it your position that trading release of funding for investigation of a political rival is not impeachable?
Hypothetically if direct evidence supports that claim, would you support impeachment?
Is it your position that trading release of funding for investigation of a political rival is not impeachable?
Hypothetically if direct evidence supports that claim, would you support impeachment?
how are those equivalent?My position is that the crime in question, even if it occurred to the degree specified by Dems, which I don't believe occurred, does not warrant impeachment proceedings. If it did, then no president of either party would last 6 months.
One could argue that Obama committed equivalent quid pro quo deals in secretly returning the billions up Iran or in the funding of anti-nethanyu parties in Israel's elections. Also, just because it is a personal benefit for Trump to have Biden investigated does not preclude it from also being a US benefit which is the criteria for an allowed conversation.
I think even Joe Biden is with in limits if it follows proper DOJ procedures.Don't know. That's why I'm trying to understand if there is a crime under pilt's hypothetical since there has to be a crime for impeachment.
(Also, wondering if every politician is off limits from investigation. Isn't every politician a political rival to any other politician?)
Lots of "smart money" in companies that have more debt than Chesapeake
So you are saying debt concerns require context?Do those companies have concerns about bringing in sufficient revenue to service the debt?
No idea. Will you be replying with the relevant crime? Just want to know if I should check back in this thread tonight.I think even Joe Biden is with in limits if it follows proper DOJ procedures.
How many non political rivals has DJT conditioned foreign aid appropriated by congress upon?
Is DJT leading the charge on the Epstein investigation with this much zeal and gusto?
So you are saying debt concerns require context?
Debt didn't kill CHK, piss poor capital allocation did.
You should have asked. Any other obvious scams you need me to take a look at?You're gonna need to lend your fortune telling abilities to the rest of humanity.
But, slight of hand noted.
Abuse of power.No idea. Will you be replying with the relevant crime? Just want to know if I should check back in this thread tonight.
How does Pilt make his employer money?You should have asked. Any other obvious scams you need me to take a look at?
I just sit around until some one says "how many wells should we drill at a loss?" and I simply say "zero."How does Pilt make his employer money?
In any case, DJT is on super thin ice today. So many things have to go to his advantage for fundamentals to turn to his favor that I think the OP is expressing his desire, not a dispassionate analysis.
Having said that, no one misplays a good hand better than the Democrats.
Soliciting foreign assistance with a political campaign is a crime. Foreign entities providing anything of value to a campaign is a crime.Don't know. That's why I'm trying to understand if there is a crime under pilt's hypothetical since there has to be a crime for impeachment.
(Also, wondering if every politician is off limits from investigation. Isn't every politician a political rival to any other politician?)