Support for impeachment slips 4 points from October: poll

The CRA has nothing to do with WHO borrows money. It is solely dependent on WHERE the land is. And over 80% of CRA loans went to corporations....

But you knew that.....

You watch too much Fox News

Sundland changed his testimony because he doesn't want to go to jail for lying. And remember, Sundland is a friend of Trumps who BOUGHT his ambassadorship. He recanted and changed his testimony because he knew they had him in a lie. Nothing more, nothing less.

This idea that everyone is testifying on 3rd hand information is right wing mahamba jamba.....Their trying to attack the character of the witness' because they cant discredit what they said.

 

I'll debate you on it, just on a new thread.

 

From Wikipedia:

"Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination."

It was basically made illegal for banks to properly evaluate home loans, all in the name of 'fairness'. Obama's buddies at ACORN were suing banks for racism who dared to turn down unqualified borrowers. Bush tried to rein in some of the mayhem, but was opposed by Congressional Democrats. Barney Frank said he wanted to "roll the dice a little more".

The two people on the call deny there was a QPQ.

Why won't Schiff testify?

 

For what it's worth, you can't prove that they are testifying honestly about their opinions.

 

I never made such a claim. You are dishonest.

 

You should read the CRA. The CRA makes no concession to the buyer. ONLY to the property. The fact that banks make "riskier" loans on CRA properties is not a function of the CRA law.

You left out this part from the same wiki:

So my point is validated.

Why would Schiff testify. He wasn't on the call.

There are others on the call who said their was. One of them is a highly decorated Colonel in the US Army.

 

And you can prove they aren't ? Opinions don't carry on a witness stand. The facts are the facts. This can all be easily remediated by Trump releasing the recording of the actual call. But he's not doing that for a very simple reason

 

Realy? You claimed it was the slowest recovery in history so it was bad (paraphrase). Right ?

 

Yeah...because there is none. There hasn't been a recording of the President conversing on the phone with another foreign leader since the 70's. But hey, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's an article about Obama's phone calls in which it explicitly states that they aren't recorded and haven't been recorded since Nixon.

Link: How a presidential phone call gets made

The article was written in 2014. Long before Trump so you can't exactly claim it as some sort of right wing conspiracy. Well....you can....but then you'd be intentionally lying.

 

With support for impeachment now having already risen to 49.2% and the public phase of the constitutional process only about to begin, with dedicated public servants testifying under oath as to what went down during the whole sordid affair, the knowledge Americans gain through the exposition (and even more if Fake Don stops obstructing the process and gagging intimates like Mulvaney and Bolton) will serve to help them in November, 2020.

Knowledge is good, but not all enthuse over the prospect.

​

 

Correct. Their opinions are worthless.

That's what makes this hoax laughable. People are setting their hair on fire over some people's opinions.

 

That was supposed to be "record", It must have been autocorrected.MY apologies

 

Then release the real record of the call. The unabridged, un-redacted, actual record of the call.

 

?

The pertinent portion is out there.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/25/trump-ukraine-phone-call-transcript-text-pdf-1510770

 

I never made the dumb comment you claimed I made. Again you are dishonest.

 

They have been valid, things that would have caused uproar had prior presidents have done them — but with red hats no such standard applies. Could you have imagined if every person around obama was being arrested or resigning because of corruption? If foreign dignitaries were paying him money to rent out pieces of his property? The debt was an issue with obama but suddenly not even on the radar.

 

Thats a "call memo" created by the Trump administration.

And it actually says that he wanted a "favor" for the missles......he calls it a "favor", the law calls it extortion

 

you didn't say it was the "weakest recovery" ?

you sure ?

 

It's NOT created by the Trump administration, FYI. And secondly, he never stated ANYTHING about missiles nor about the military funding. You are going all Schiff on the transcript which is disingenuous!

 

Read the transcript, you cant be serious ?

i.e. " you need some missiles.....ok, but you have to do this first"

 

Yes, if a Deep State witch hunt was launched against Obama and 96% of the press was against him.

 

Right now we are extorting Iran in an effort to get them to change their behavior, does that offend you?

 

So opinion, ok.
Do you believe Obama behaved in the way trump does?

 

If were doing it in the interests of the United States than it is valid and legal. The POTUS using congressionally approved funds to extort for personal political gain is illegal.

 

"i.e. " you need some missiles.....ok, but you have to do this first""

OK. You made up that interpretation.

Too bad that fakery is all that the Democrats have.