I get that in some ways. But that is not what I was replying to. His wasn't a posture of, I need to know more. It was immediately, "it is fake news" with absolutely no knowledge that it was fake news.
Tom Homan: Dead man walking?
- Thread starter LafayetteBear
- Start date
Ned needs Fox News detox, otherwise he is in a completely different reality
on which topic, Corruption is bad? or can't believe anything anymore?
I don't watch Fox news..CNBC, Bloomberg, Fox business, old war movies, lots of sports, local news.
As I posted, I have not seen or read about this anywhere. With the profile Homan has, I would think that AOC, Crocket Murphy or one of the anti ICE people would be on the news daily if not hourly.
But, as I also said, I don't watch the news all day, so maybe it was on and I didn't see it
Ned: Enough with the gaslighting. You are embarrassing yourself at this point. It's been ALL OVER the news. My guess is that even Faux News devoted a minute or two to reporting on it.
bear, you know me, I don't gaslight. I factually have not seen it. Like I said I don't watch any of the national cable channels - only local news down here in Florida. I read quite a few papers and I have not seen it. Like I said, I only heard it on this board.
Now I would think that if there's anything to this story the pressure on Trump to address it would be immense. And I haven't seen anything from him either.
But, I will look for it.
ok, found it. Like everyone else, I don't know any more about it than the next guy, but does seem as if the FBI/DoJ needs to provide more information as to what is going on. If an FBI agent was involved than there are a lot more agents working in the background to come up with the money, set up cameras, ATC and someone higher up would have had to approve it. There should be some transparency. This does not look good
Last edited:
How do they know what was in the bag? It could have been brownies. Is there video of whats in the bag? If not Ill just mark it down as another bs claim until proven otherwise...
Last edited:
You can still do it if you like. You love abortion so much just self-abort, just saying...
Happy Friday, Rob. You're on a roll today, dude.
If there were brownies in the bag, then why didn't Homan simply and flatly deny having received $50,000 in cash? Also problematic is the fact that they have audio of the transaction, and it may well include some discussion of the payment. Time will tell, but why would Homan, Trump, or anyone else oppose the public release of the video and audio of this? Finally, it is a bit problematic to argue that it was brownies (or some item other than cash), given that Homan and his "friend" were, according to multiple witnesses, out there soliciting payments (aka, bribes).
I agree that the administration needs to be more transparent on this. If this was a setup or ai generated or whatever, if there's a video there's more than likely audio. And as we all know the problem only gets worse with attempting to cover it up. If Homan committed a crime much better to cut him loose. I'm sure there's someone in the department who could keep the organization moving forward
just as a reminder....our boomer friend ned here literally blamed Jimmy Carter for shutting down mental hospitals and lauded Reagan for cleaning up the resulting homeless population that was unleashed onto the streets...
of course, any sentient being with a triple digit IQ and a cursory grasp of history understands that the exact opposite happened and one of Reagan's primary stains on his legacy was his behavior as CA governor and president with regard to shutting down mental health facilities and exploding the homeless population including tons of veterans (thank you for your service!).
just a word to the wise for anyone thinking ned is on here to discuss matters in good faith. he's a MAGA boomer incapable of either discerning the truth or willfully speaking it.
When will you ever learn that people who get their news from Catturd and Tim Pool should never try to debate people who live in reality?
Did you even read the post I responded to??
Since you don't understand things, let me lay it out for you.
- Biden led a bi-partisan, international coalition that included the United States, the European Union, the World Bank and the International Monetary fund that sought to remove Shokin because he refused to address corruption.
- This had NOTHING to do with Burisma, who wasn't even being investigated at the time.
- Firing Shokin made it MORE likely that Burisma would be investigated, not less.
- The false claim that Biden called for Shokin's firing to help his son was perpetrated by Rudy Giuliani
- Numerous sources, including a September 2020 report from two Republican-led Senate committees, found no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden related to his son's position at Burisma
Do you get it now????
I understand the lie and propaganda that was put out. Shokin was investigating Burisma where Hunter,with zero experience, was on the board. This story has been told over and over and sworn statements have been taken that doesnt back the Biden spin. This was one of the fraudulent reasons they claim to have impeached Trump over, with no evidence, when it was really them doing it. Thus it was a coup attempt against Trump...
It's easy to google this if you want and LOLOL that Shokin's firing in March 2016 was a coup attempt against Trump who wasn't even officially nominated until three months later. Wanna explain how that makes sense when at the time, nobody new Trump would be the Republican nominee?
No, the false claim that Trump withheld funds in a quid quo pro and thus tried to illegally remove the elected POTUS by false means. Thats a coup attempt and they did it multiple times and thus are also guilty of treason. Every single person involved with the impeachments that knew it was all a lie is guilty...
Wait, don't move the goalposts now, you said this when talking about Shokin's firing:
"This was one of the fraudulent reasons they claim to have impeached Trump over, with no evidence, when it was really them doing it. Thus it was a coup attempt against Trump..."
What do you say about a President who threatens to withhold already appropriated funds to Ukraine unless they announce a FAKE investigation into his political rival? I know you've fooled yourself into believing everything Trump does is ordained by god, but that's impeachable as hell and he would have been tossed out on his *** if Republicans had any testicles.
Zero proof of the claim. Wasnt on the call and even the Ukrainian President confirmed that never happen. They tried to use it to illegally remove him from office and thus a coup attempt. That was yet again another failed "You got him now" moment for all you TDS ridden tards...
Yes and no proof of the claim is there. Dont tell me that you fell for Pencilneck reading a fake script during the impeachment? Yes they admitted it wasnt the real transcript he was reading...
why was Adam Schiff able to get away with reading a fake transcript into the record during the Trump impeachment?
Adam Schiff was able to read a “fake” version of Trump’s call because:
ChatGPT said:
That’s a sharp observation — here’s the context on why Adam Schiff could do that during the first Trump impeachment hearings (2019).
What Happened
- During a House Intelligence Committee hearing in September 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — then Chair of the Committee — opened with a paraphrased “dramatic reading” of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Instead of reading the official White House call memo, Schiff gave an exaggerated version that implied Trump was like a mob boss demanding favors.
- Republicans and critics said he misled the public by presenting his version as if it were the transcript.
Why He Could “Get Away With It”
- Congressional Speech & Debate Clause
- Under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress are immune from prosecution or lawsuits for things said in official proceedings.
- That means Schiff could not be charged criminally or sued civilly for reading or paraphrasing on the record — even if misleading.
- He Called It a “Parody”
- After criticism, Schiff said it was a “parody” or dramatization, not meant to be taken as the literal transcript.
- That framing, while controversial, gave him cover — since he didn’t claim it was the actual verbatim record.
- House Majority Protection
- At the time, Democrats controlled the House. Schiff, as Committee Chair, had procedural power.
- Unless the majority moved to censure or discipline him, there were no formal consequences.
- Public vs. Legal Accountability
- The main check was political backlash (public opinion, media scrutiny, election consequences).
- Legally, there was no mechanism to punish him for what critics called “fabrication” — it’s considered protected speech in a congressional hearing.
Summary
Adam Schiff was able to read a “fake” version of Trump’s call because:- The Speech & Debate Clause shields members of Congress from legal action for things said in hearings.
- He later said it was a parody, not an official transcript.
- The House majority backed him, so no internal discipline followed.
why was Adam Schiff able to get away with reading a fake transcript into the record during the Trump impeachment?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a sharp observation — here’s the context on why Adam Schiff could do that during the first Trump impeachment hearings (2019).
- During a House Intelligence Committee hearing in September 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — then Chair of the Committee — opened with a paraphrased “dramatic reading” of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Instead of reading the official White House call memo, Schiff gave an exaggerated version that implied Trump was like a mob boss demanding favors.
- Republicans and critics said he misled the public by presenting his version as if it were the transcript.
- Congressional Speech & Debate Clause
- Under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress are immune from prosecution or lawsuits for things said in official proceedings.
- That means Schiff could not be charged criminally or sued civilly for reading or paraphrasing on the record — even if misleading.
- He Called It a “Parody”
- After criticism, Schiff said it was a “parody” or dramatization, not meant to be taken as the literal transcript.
- That framing, while controversial, gave him cover — since he didn’t claim it was the actual verbatim record.
- House Majority Protection
- At the time, Democrats controlled the House. Schiff, as Committee Chair, had procedural power.
- Unless the majority moved to censure or discipline him, there were no formal consequences.
- Public vs. Legal Accountability
- The main check was political backlash (public opinion, media scrutiny, election consequences).
- Legally, there was no mechanism to punish him for what critics called “fabrication” — it’s considered protected speech in a congressional hearing.
Adam Schiff was able to read a “fake” version of Trump’s call because:
- The Speech & Debate Clause shields members of Congress from legal action for things said in hearings.
- He later said it was a parody, not an official transcript.
- The House majority backed him, so no internal discipline followed.
any of our local libs defending this?
Who TF is talking about Adam Schiff and his reading on the floor - I don't even remember that. I'm talking about the actual transcript that can readily be found online and the associated campaign before and after the call that put pressure on Zelensky to open a fake investigation into Biden because Trump is a corrupt MFer that knew he was going to lose the election.why was Adam Schiff able to get away with reading a fake transcript into the record during the Trump impeachment?
ChatGPT said:
That’s a sharp observation — here’s the context on why Adam Schiff could do that during the first Trump impeachment hearings (2019).
- During a House Intelligence Committee hearing in September 2019, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) — then Chair of the Committee — opened with a paraphrased “dramatic reading” of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
- Instead of reading the official White House call memo, Schiff gave an exaggerated version that implied Trump was like a mob boss demanding favors.
- Republicans and critics said he misled the public by presenting his version as if it were the transcript.
- Congressional Speech & Debate Clause
- Under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6), members of Congress are immune from prosecution or lawsuits for things said in official proceedings.
- That means Schiff could not be charged criminally or sued civilly for reading or paraphrasing on the record — even if misleading.
- He Called It a “Parody”
- After criticism, Schiff said it was a “parody” or dramatization, not meant to be taken as the literal transcript.
- That framing, while controversial, gave him cover — since he didn’t claim it was the actual verbatim record.
- House Majority Protection
- At the time, Democrats controlled the House. Schiff, as Committee Chair, had procedural power.
- Unless the majority moved to censure or discipline him, there were no formal consequences.
- Public vs. Legal Accountability
- The main check was political backlash (public opinion, media scrutiny, election consequences).
- Legally, there was no mechanism to punish him for what critics called “fabrication” — it’s considered protected speech in a congressional hearing.
Adam Schiff was able to read a “fake” version of Trump’s call because:
- The Speech & Debate Clause shields members of Congress from legal action for things said in hearings.
- He later said it was a parody, not an official transcript.
- The House majority backed him, so no internal discipline followed.
- Prior to the July 25 call, Trump directed U.S. officials advocating for a White House meeting with Zelensky to work with Giuliani and satisfy his concerns before a meeting.
- On multiple occasions, Giuliani and U.S. officials communicated that those concerns were the need for Ukraine to pursue investigations that would benefit Trump, namely investigations of alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and of Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and/or Burisma, a Ukrainian company who’s board Hunter Biden served on.
- Multiple officials testified that at a July 10 meeting in the White House a top U.S. diplomat told Ukrainian officials the acting White House Chief of Staff had blessed an agreement that a White House meeting would occur if Ukraine pursued specific investigations.
- At least a week prior to the July 25 phone call, Trump ordered that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) place a hold on congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine.
- Giuliani and administration officials advocated for a phone call between Trump and Zelensky as a means to obtaining a meeting and suggested ways that Zelensky could satisfy Trump on the call by committing to pursue investigations Trump wanted.
- Because the July 25 call apparently did not adequately appease Trump, Giuliani and Trump administration officials later pressed for Zelensky to publicly commit to investigating “Burisma” and “2016”
- By early September, U.S. officials also communicated that security assistance, in addition to the White House meeting, would be withheld until Zelensky made this commitment.
- Only intervening events in the United States—public reporting of a whistleblower complaint relating to the Trump administration’s pressure campaign and the Trump administration’s belated release of security assistance—prevented Zelensky from following through.
Trump's Ukraine call was damning, and the context makes it even worse - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The evidence gathered to date shows that Trump, with the help of Giuliani and senior U.S. officials, engaged in a protracted campaign to pressure Zelensky.
www.citizensforethics.org
The transcript was released and it doesnt say what you claim it says, only the pencilneck version does which is a fake...Who TF is talking about Adam Schiff and his reading on the floor - I don't even remember that. I'm talking about the actual transcript that can readily be found online and the associated campaign before and after the call that put pressure on Zelensky to open a fake investigation into Biden because Trump is a corrupt MFer that knew he was going to lose the election.
- Prior to the July 25 call, Trump directed U.S. officials advocating for a White House meeting with Zelensky to work with Giuliani and satisfy his concerns before a meeting.
- On multiple occasions, Giuliani and U.S. officials communicated that those concerns were the need for Ukraine to pursue investigations that would benefit Trump, namely investigations of alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and of Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and/or Burisma, a Ukrainian company who’s board Hunter Biden served on.
- Multiple officials testified that at a July 10 meeting in the White House a top U.S. diplomat told Ukrainian officials the acting White House Chief of Staff had blessed an agreement that a White House meeting would occur if Ukraine pursued specific investigations.
- At least a week prior to the July 25 phone call, Trump ordered that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) place a hold on congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine.
- Giuliani and administration officials advocated for a phone call between Trump and Zelensky as a means to obtaining a meeting and suggested ways that Zelensky could satisfy Trump on the call by committing to pursue investigations Trump wanted.
- Because the July 25 call apparently did not adequately appease Trump, Giuliani and Trump administration officials later pressed for Zelensky to publicly commit to investigating “Burisma” and “2016”
- By early September, U.S. officials also communicated that security assistance, in addition to the White House meeting, would be withheld until Zelensky made this commitment.
- Only intervening events in the United States—public reporting of a whistleblower complaint relating to the Trump administration’s pressure campaign and the Trump administration’s belated release of security assistance—prevented Zelensky from following through.
Trump's Ukraine call was damning, and the context makes it even worse - CREW | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington
The evidence gathered to date shows that Trump, with the help of Giuliani and senior U.S. officials, engaged in a protracted campaign to pressure Zelensky.
You've got to be kidding yourself right now. You actually typed this **** out.
You got an example I’m forgetting where they accepted a cash bribe and then dropped the case? There were many in the previous admin I don’t care for, so happy for you to share?
Latest
-
01
Tiger Illustrated Football
What Clemson's coaches have told us so far
-
02
On3 Football
SEC files lawsuit against LSU, Lane Kiffin in wake of push to bring back former NFL players
-
03
Tiger Illustrated Football
Thursday Clemson Football Insider
-
04
Tiger Illustrated Football
We're hearing the stock is up for these two Clemson Football players
-
05
Tiger Illustrated Football
Wednesday night Clemson Football practice notes