![]() |
Democrats move forward towards impeaching Trump.
No mukposting pls
Quick Summary, courtesy of BBC News - Quote:
Quote:
This could go really well or really, really bad. Trump himself has said an impeachment inquiry would be a “positive for me.” His overzealous fanbase will be,,.,.,.,definitely radicalized even further by this. |
All hinges on the transcript release, if it is a nothing burger like the Muller report was, it could look very bad for Democrats. If it shows a crime then it could doom Trump if the Democrats elect anyone other than Biden as their nominee.
|
It's going to go really bad, period. Pelosi for a while was doing the right thing by refusing to give in to the more radicalized members of the party. Regardless of whether they find anything on Trump or not (and I seriously doubt they would find anything), they will push it anyway in the House, and the impeachment attempt would be dead on arrival in the Senate. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to change my attention to something else, as lately politics have been very painful to follow...but I feel it's something I have to do to make sure I know what's going on.
|
I think the irony is lost upon them. "Oh, that Donald is always hiding something, I'm sure of it" but they completely missed the beat when Biden essentially used his political clout to save his crack head son.
This is going to be a glorious bonfire of what's left of their credibility (not that there's much left anyways). Once you say you want to take away cheeseburgers (in the land of Cheeseburgers and Shotguns) the gloves are off. Pelosi (as awful as she is) needs to really knuckle down, grit and bear it and tell her party to stfu. With LA and San Fran in shambles, with LA being cleaned up by those dastardly Republicans, with President Trump raising more in CA in a single day than the dem candidates combined for the entire month . . . things are dire indeed. Peter Strozk messed up, so did Comey and everyone else thinking that it would be easy to throw 45 under the bus. Reality bites, and so far there is no evidence and no coroboration. What's more, since the Dems are demanding investigations they are sucking the American Taxpayer for millions because they didn't get their way. They are absolutely insane. It won't work, it'll fall on deaf ears and the only one's it helps is the Republicans and the center for seeing what's really going on. It's been near 3 years of non-stop inquiry and non-stop nothing-burgers. What if they do manage to impeach him? What are they really going to ask or investigate? Maybe instead of wasting everyone's time they can focus on more important issues, like why are children forced to live in San Francisco and walk the needle ridden streets? Problems they should address but are not. The Union Center is voting for Trump in 2020. This means that the center has lost faith in the Dems for the working class. This is the big bad for them. Personally, whether you're left or right I don't care, but I look forward the meltdowns if he wins again (chances are he will, but hey you never know). I have no idea who they can front to run against him at all. Good Luck |
A little bit of information ahead of tomorrow’s release is slowly coming out. There is no guarantee this is true as it does come from the administration’s spin of the IG report
• The IG found that the whistle blower had significant bias toward of it Trump’s 2020 opponents • The whistle blower has retained lawyers with deep ties to Democrat politicians. • The whistle blower did not directly hear the conversation but relayed it from someone who had heard it. • There is no smoking gun in the report but there are some words that could cause trouble for the administration. • The Ukrainian Investigation into Joe Biden’s son was only briefly mentioned in the scope of the entire conversation. Again take it all with a grain of salt until the White House releases the IG report but it is their spin at the moment. |
They should have moved to impeach ages ago. Doing it on the back of this Ukraine report could be a huge mistake, if it turns out to be nothing but a scapegoat then the whole impeachment will be undermined.
|
Are we really still pretending that Trump doesn't have a history of doing dodgy shit? The Mueller report did not clear Trump of anything, regardless of how Barr tried to spin it. There was not sufficient evidence to unequivocally prove a crime - because of encryption, refusal to testify or plain false testimony, especially as collusion does not have a legal definition. It did make it pretty clear though that not only was there Russian interference in the election, interference that the Trump campaign welcomed with open arms, but that numerous members of the Trump campaign had connections to the Russian government or had spoken to them and had then tried to hide this or otherwise obstruct the investigation. It also outlines numerous times where Trump potentially (read "did but we have to have a trial first") obstructed or attempted to manipulate the investigation. It made it pretty clear that it did not exonerate Trump of anything and that he could be tried, at least for the obstruction, once he was out of office (which will probably be soon even without impeachment given his rightfully bad approval ratings).
Now someone is saying that there's potentially a round 2 of this with Ukraine. Trump openly admits to discussing Biden with the Ukrainian President (and to withholding funds promised to Ukraine iirc) in a situation where the Democrats really do not need help to beat Trump if his approval ratings are any indicator. People don't want this investigated??? That's an awful lot of coincidences to ignore based on blind and misguided faith in a man who has been shown over and over again to be a shady, pathological liar. I don't know about the rest of you, but even if my country's leader was on the same side of the political spectrum as me, I'd want those sorts of claims properly investigated for the sake of security. It might not be certain that he pulled this, but it wouldn't exactly be out of character. The weird thing with this though, is that unless Trump is successfully impeached - somehow, despite a Republican majority senate - this revelation probably won't make much of a difference in the grand scheme of things. His fan-base are prepared to ignore the Russia scandal, they're prepared to ignore his dick-measuring turned bromance with a dictator, they're prepared to ignore sex crimes - some of them against minors, they're prepared to ignore his tax evasion and the endless torrent of lies that pour out of his mouth, they're prepared to ignore him being in bed with the Saudi's and his attempts to manufacture a war with Iran and they're even willing to let him doom the human race to environmental extinction so he and his buddies can keep making money off of toxic industries. Even if it is 100% confirmed that Trump was trying to blackmail Zelensky, his rabid fanbase will continue to support him just like they have through every other terrible and/or stupid thing he's done. Case in point: this thread. All that will come of this is that Trump's base will point at whatever horrible thing Biden/his son did or are doing and pretend that Biden also being a piece of shit somehow invalidates Trump's litany of flaws and total unsuitability to the office of President. Even then though, what happens if Trump is successfully impeached? Pence is in power following that and suddenly the 2020 election is a different game because the Republicans find themselves with a much more electable candidate, because even with Pence being just as terrible a human being as Trump, he seems like a much more capable politician. So an impeachment could end up as a net win for the Republicans even if it's successful. It's absolutely mad to think that one moron getting into office could have this wild an impact on both American and global politics. God I hope the electoral college doesn't save him again and that he doesn't manage a second upset victory. |
Quote:
In reality there is more of an argument to make now that elements in the US Government conspired to take down the Trump Campaign and it's associates, than there is that Trump engaged with Russia in a conspiracy to win the election. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Those are just a few off the top of my head. |
I don't want to get into the Mueller report too much in this thread, as we've all been down that road before and it's not truly what this thread is about, but an important thing about it that people miss, either intentionally or unintentionally, is that while the investigation was not "curtailed or stopped or hindered in any way" by Donald Trump, it was still shown that he attempted to obstruct the investigation. Attempting a crime is still a crime, like how attempted murder or attempted robbery is a crime even if you don't kill anyone or steal anything.
So anyway, I hope that the Dems don't pin their entire impeachment inquiry on this Ukraine phone call. The chances of it alone being the blade of evil's bane like they hoped that the Mueller report would be is probably very slim. If you want to take down Trump and have the country's first successful removal of a president from office via impeachment, you need to gather up a lot more stuff than that. But even if they do successfully impeach Trump, even if we do get a good President out of the 2020 election, there is no hope for the U.S. anyway |
Quote:
https://twitter.com/JoeConchaTV/status/1176575657003888641?s=20 If Democrats want those numbers to change then they need to drill down to a simple message, a simple crime, instead of trying to make an overly long overarching case that people won’t pay attention to or will allow the Trump administration to muddy up. Nixon: Watergate Break in, Clinton: Lying under oath, Trump: ????? Keep it simple and hammer it and the public has a chance of caring, and turning those numbers, don’t do that and Trump not only gets away on impeachment, but he probably gets a second term and the Republicans regain the House. |
The transcript has been published.
It's not the hugest smoking gun in the world, but it's definitely not as innocent as Trump implied: Quote:
|
Note that the release is a memo and explicitly states that it is not a verbatim transcript of the call - take what you will from that, however. It’s important to clarify early on that it is a memo so that we don’t get a repeat of the Mueller-Barr situation where (intentionally?) poor semantics from the media allows the big picture to be missed. The mental gymnastics from the Trump fanbase that will go into denying the severity of what was laid out will be... interesting to watch, but the fact that it is a staff summary and not an explicit recording will inevitably complicate things for either side.
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
So they released the whistleblower complaint yesterday: https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20190812_-_whistleblower_complaint_unclass.pdf
|
*slow clap* Congratulations. Not only was there nothing worth anything in this conversation as verified with the Ukranian President but the entire media pretended there was zero evidence Biden used his position to get a foreign GP fired when Biden himself claimed he did on video. Do they not realise the internet is a thing?
So, so sad. Is anyone else enjoying the fire? |
I've been following this pretty closely all week. I can't come to any conclusion other than Trump abused his station for personal political gain, something which should see him removed from office (but won't).
What Trump did could well have put Ukraine in a very bad position. The revelation of what he did will definitely undermine trust in the US government abroad and potentially domestically as well. None of this is good for the US. It may push other countries to deal with China or Russia instead, and while I don't have any personal disdain for the people of those countries, I think their governments are dangerous to people worldwide. I think I know how this is going to play out. Democrats are going to be giddy because they're going to feel vindicated. I certainly understand why they'd feel that way but I don't think that's an appropriate reaction considering the negative effects this is going to have on US interests. Republicans are going to defend Trump due to overwhelming confirmation bias. I don't think they should; the facts of this case make it fairly obvious he was in the wrong, but internal bias is difficult for a lot of people to recognize and even harder to mitigate. Eventually articles of impeachment will be drafted and Trump will be tried before the Senate. It'll be a political circus with lots of posturing by Senators largely just looking to score points at the polls. After the circus is finished, the articles will all be defeated because conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate. There are currently 47 Democrats and Independents, meaning 20 Republicans would have to vote in favor of conviction. Simply put, that won't happen. Trump's support base is too strong (he polls 80-90% within the Republican Party) and it would be political suicide in most Republican districts. Republicans will (wrongly) consider this vindication that Trump did nothing wrong. Democrats will probably be upset at the failure of the system. Both sides will become even more polarized and vitriolic, I'm sure. Look forward to more poisonous dialog and violence in the streets by the extremes on both sides. I really hope it doesn't play out this way because I don't think any of this is good for the country. The only silver lining is that I don't think Trump's going to win 2020 (the people suggesting this scandal will somehow make him more popular are delusional). Even that's more like a lesser loss to me than a win. I think my opinions on the Democratic Party's politics are well-established, but if not, suffice it to say I'm generally not a fan (I lean Libertarian). Still, I think whoever they might elect will at least try to do what they think is right for the country, even if I strongly disagree with what that may look like. Hopefully Bernie or Biden gets the nomination; I really don't like Warren and the other choices look like they're already a lost cause (too far behind in the polls). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Ight, mane I believe you.
|
Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1QF1D3 |
Quote:
|
Now Trump's publicly gone and asked China to investigate the Bidens:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/trump-china-bidens.html |
Quote:
|
Oops! Biden is found with his son's Ukrainian business buddies? Biden is tanking hard right now. He's on a knife edge and if any dem really wants the ticket they just need to make a little push.
There isn't anything here except Schiff making a mockery of the Democratic party again with his crazy bug-eyes. Pelosi backed up Schiff so now she has egg on her face again. Finger waving Sanders is pretty much kaput as well with his heart attack news. The Democrats look like they decided to open up a wax museum on Mercury. The best advice I think the Dems can get is to shut up and sit down because everything they try explodes in their faces like a bottle of rancid carbonated feces. Every single push they have for impeaching President Trump has ended in abysmal failure and resignations from leakers and pushers alike. Eggs for everyone! |
i wouldn't really say that there's "nothing here" and that the dems need to "shut up and sit down"
trump literally just publicly did what the impeachment inquiry is accusing him of: asking a foreign government to give him an advantage in our election....and after he was cleared of doing that with russia in the mueller report at that but i don't really expect people who can't/don't want to see it to see it |
He acts pretty weird sometimes... For example, after the procedure of his impeachment has started - he began to ask China to investigate the Bidens case. Here it is (source: https://chicagomorningstar.com/china-should-investigate-the-bidens-says-trump). What can you say about these news? And what can you say about his behavior? Is he ok, or not so?
|
It has essentially become the issue that will decide the 2020 election. I do not expect them to have it resolved by then and, as a result, people will likely cast their vote on the basis of whether or not they want President Trump impeached.
|
It’s a month old but taking the advice from the Democrats thread I will push this back up, I hope Her doesn’t mind.
There was a rather stunning admission in today’s hearing. “The president never told you about any preconditions for aid? No The president never told you about any preconditions for a White House meeting? No” https://twitter.com/repandybiggsaz/status/1197193935157972992 This continues the long trend of witnesses saying they did not see anything criminal. |
The whole impeachment thing has been going on even before Trump got elected (there were people wanting to impeach Trump BEFORE he even took office, and that is proven to be true), so I'm not surprised to see that anything the Democrats are coming up with are getting debunked by their own witnesses (for those that argue otherwise, remember that news outlets don't tell the whole story. I find recordings of the actual testimony to be much more reliable than a journalist's report). I'm more looking towards the date of December 11, where the IG Report is going to be discussed regarding the findings of looking into the procedure by the Democrats that looked into Trump's 2016 campaign. I don't have high expectations of what will come out of that report, since I'm sure there's some bias in that report, much like the extreme bias found in the Mueller report. Considering how Democrats have been running their side of things, I will personally find the findings of the IG Report to be much more creditable, but certainly open to debate.
|
I don't know anything about US shit so please forgive me if I sound stupid here but:
What's with this obsession about Russia? Why do Americans seem to hate Russians? The cold war is over this makes no sense Why is it bad if he talks to president of the Ukraine or to Putin? Why do people think Russia interfered with the election? Why would they do that? Doesn't Putin dislike trump? Wouldn't he try to make Hillary win? And why is it bad if Trump does want a more positive relationship with Russia? Wouldn't that be a good thing? If superpower countries are on good terms isn't that a relief? I need to make it clear that I am a leftist and I don't even like Trump and I don't agree with the shit hes doing but is Russia/former soviet countries specifically so bad? |
Quote:
Ignore whatever fantasy you have about Trump supposedly wanting a more positive relationship with Russia. He doesn't give a rat's ass at the end of the day. Mostly because, Trump is a puppet of Putin, because that's exactly how Putin wanted it all along. Trump wasn't a gift to the US from Putin, he was a "fuck you" to the US from Putin. I should note that I am not a nationalist; hell, I don't even care about the US anymore. I left because of Trump, but he was merely the last straw. |
Quote:
Russia, while the Cold War is over, is still a geopolitical foe of the US, they expand their influence and support people that are very much against the US, such antagonism has been debated back and forth between Republicans and Democrats since 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia. In 2016, Russia tried to hack both the Democratic Party and Republican Party servers, doing that they were successfully able to get emails from the Democratic Party server showing some less than savory things done by the Democratic Party on behalf of Hillary Clinton. Russia then used Wikileaks to slowly drip out the emails throughout the election cycle in an attempt to hurt Hillary Clinton, during that time Russia took out some ads and made Facebook groups in an attempt to support Trump or to drum up support for divisive issues. Democrats believed that Trump helped coordinate all of this with Russia to win the election, a view pushed by Hillary the day after she lost. We finally know there was no coordination but it still remains a fringe conspiracy theory. On the topic of Putin and Trump, he doesn’t necessarily like Trump or not, it was more about trying to sow discord in the US, and poke at Hillary who they believed would win the election. I am not sure when Putin and Hillary started hating each other, as Hillary was part of the famous photo in 2009 when the Obama Administration tried to “reset” relations with Russia. As for Ukraine, there is no problem with Trump talking to the President of Ukraine persay, but during that time Trump had frozen some security funds Ukraine was supposed to get, while he pushed for Ukraine to open a corruption investigation into the corrupt activities of Joe Biden’s son in Ukraine, Joe Biden’s son basically got a six figure salary from a Ukrainian company in return for selling access to the Obama White House. So the belief is that Trump tried to use government power (Ukrainians security funds) to get Ukraine to open a damaging political investigation into his rival’s (Joe Biden) son. I know it’s a lot of information but I hope it helps. |
Quote:
Then read the end where I say I do not like Trump at all, I just don't know any of this which is why I asked, I think you were quite rude and presumptive there. I just remember when people were saying he wanted to have a relationship with Russia or whatever. @EnglishALT thank you for explaining it all to me! So I'm guessing they wish to impeach him because he tried to dig up dirt on Biden's son? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
In a sense, the question is, what was the intent of the withhold aid? Democrats are trying to prove, at the expense of taxpayer's money, that Trump wanted dirt on Biden. Republicans, meanwhile, aim their questions at confirming their stance that the reason was because Trump still suspected Ukraine of being corrupt, which if proven true (I am not sure it is 100% at this point, since everyone is still having to be on the defensive), is entirely legal for the president to do. However, I've been convinced that the exchange with the president of Ukraine is just something the Democrats are clinging onto to try to find ways to get rid of a president that was elected by the people when Democrats wanted their own to win. So, I'm not really buying any arguments from the left, and I'm hoping, but not banking on, the IG Report on December 11 will at least confirm some part of the theory that came from the right. |
Quote:
Even funnier: one of Trump's own loyalists just ratted him out as absolutely engaging in QPQ. Yes, Sondland was a Trump appointee. So, what you're saying is, he's less credible than a man who has been caught lying literally hundreds of times? Why would a man who was hired to a cushy job by president shit-for-brains want to lie his way out of that job? EVEN EVEN funnier: your insistence that the Democrats are trying to get rid of a president elected by the people. How soon the right-wingers among us forget that he was not elected by a majority of Americans; not even close. He was helped by a gerrymandered map and some Russians, as well as an intensely flawed Democratic candidate. And you trying to reduce this to some kind of revenge game the Democrats are playing, when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can look at the evidence in front of them and determine that this is a worthy investigation. Trump was already an impeachment proceeding waiting to happen; they just needed the hard evidence. Now, they have it. Kiss your boy goodbye. |
Nunes is making it even worse for Trump. This morning, he compared what Trump did to the Jay Treaty, signed by George Washington, and claimed that if this were 1794, Democrats would want to impeach him for it. Seriously, that's what he said.
Edit: Tails, question. Why do you think this IG Report will be any different? It's become almost a quarterly running gag, with Trump's defenders insisting each IG Report will have some incriminating evidence against the DNC. Face reality, this next IG Report will be no different than the others. |
Quote:
https://twitter.com/repandybiggsaz/status/1197193935157972992 Quote:
Quote:
Edit: New poll shows support for impeachment dropping to the low 40s with support from independents is falling through the floor. Support for impeachment has flipped since October from 48% support with 44% opposing to now 45% opposed and 43% in support. The biggest swing is among Independents, who oppose impeachment now 49% to 34%, which is a reversal from October where they supported impeachment 48% to 39%. https://emersonpolling.reportablenews.com/pr/november-national-poll-support-for-impeachment-declines-biden-and-sanders-lead-democratic-primary Politico/Morning Consultant seems to have found the same thing. Opposition by independents to the House’s ongoing impeachment inquiry jumped 10 percentage points in the last week, according to a Politico–Morning Consult poll released Tuesday. The poll showed 47 percent of independents opposed the inquiry, compared to 37 percent last week. Meanwhile support for the inquiry by independents fell 7 points to 40 percent. Support for the inquiry among all respondents fell 2 points to 48 percent, while opposition to it rose 3 points to 45 percent. https://thehill.com/homenews/house/471057-poll-independent-opposition-to-impeachment-inquiry-jumps-10-points-in-last |
Quote:
And let me post my own poll here if I may: http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1911181224.pdf#page=3 With the same date as your poll, it shows support for removal up 7 percent. |
Edit: Big News in relation to the IG report, CNN has learned atleast one FBI official is under criminal investigation for altering 2016 Russia documents.
https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/11/21/politics/fbi-fisa-russia-investigation/index.html Quote:
Now addressing your poll, an interesting tidbit to note in it. “Half of Americans said they approve of the impeachment inquiry — about the same as the poll found last month. Respondents are also split on whether they think Trump should be impeached and removed from office. But 65% of Americans say they can't imagine any information or circumstances during the impeachment inquiry where they might change their minds about their position on impeachment. And 30% say yes, it's possible.” https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/780540637/poll-americans-overwhelmingly-say-impeachment-hearings-wont-change-their-minds Again impeachment does not rise above 45%, but far more interesting is most Americans have made up their minds before the hearings have started, showing that’s number is unlikely to rise, in fact the largest group that says their minds could be changed is independents, who we have seen are losing not gaining support for impeachment. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
But again, the Ukranians not playing ball does not invalidate what Trump was trying to do.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
https://twitter.com/McFaul/status/1197693232542388224 But I don't think you can seriously look at ayone on the face and claim that Trump wasn't doing what it was absurdly obvious he was trying to do. |
Quote:
See, Trump's defenders often forget the significance of this quote: “The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” George Orwell, 1984 I don't reject the evidence of my eyes and ears, I saw Trump confess to what he did in the Rose Garden in front of the press, and I will not be swayed by technicalities in lame attempts to prove otherwise. |
Quote:
Do I believe that Trump was attempting to do a quid pro quo? Sure, have the Democrats been able to proven it so far? Not in the slightest. Which seems to also be the opinion expressed by Jonathan Turley on CBS This Morning. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kyle-drennen/2019/11/22/turley-tells-disappointed-cbs-hosts-impeachment-designed-fail Quote:
|
Breaking - Trump openly admitted on live TV to doing the thing he's accused of in the impeachment inquiry - Direct Source (Starts around 6 Min).
Thoughts? Kinda hard to deny the quid pro quo when it comes straight from the horse's mouse. |
Quote:
He is being accused at the impeachment inquiry of holding up the funds to get a political investigation into Joe Biden's son, which would count as election interference. Using funds to try to get the Ukranians to hand over the server or data in relation to on going investigations wouldn't be an impeachable offense, asking for help to defeat Joe Biden would be. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Edit: I also want to say that a lot of Presidents are accused of criminal behavior or committing crimes, President Obama with Fast and Furious comes to mind, or the Iranian Hostage for Cash deal. Usually these things are settled in election season with stump speeches and scare ads. If the floodgates are open for any opposing political party to create an impeachment hearing for a President of the opposite party they do not like, then we should expect an impeachment investigation for every President elected for now on. |
Even worse, he's made personal remarks about one of his oldest allies, Kellyanne Conway:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/22/trump-says-kellyanne-must-have-done-some-bad-things-to-george-conway/23866150/ IMOHO, Trump simply does not know when to clam up. Edit: As of today, pretty much every excuse Trump and his cohorts have made has been dismantled. https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/22/impeachment-witnesses-tested-republican-defenses-of-trump-1-by-1/23866262/ |
Republicans claim that this impeachment is a "witch hunt" and a waste of taxpayer money. I'd like to put up a comparison if I may:
Hillary Clinton Benghazi "Investigation" Duration: 4 years 0 indictments 0 charges 0 convictions Trump-Russia Investigation Duration: 20 months 35 Indictments/Charges (Individuals) (thus far) 3 Indictments/Charges (Companies) 5 guilty pleas (thus far) 4 convictions (thus far) Indicted: Paul Erickson, Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, Konstantin Kilimnik, 12 Russian GRU officers, Internet Research Agency, and Concord Management Guilty Pleas: Michael Flynn, Michael Cohen, George Papadopolous, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, and Rick Gates Over 202 Criminal Charges, including: Conspiracy against the USA (2 counts) Conspiracy to launder money (4 counts) Bank fraud (17 counts) Bank fraud conspiracy (10 counts) Subscribing to false tax returns (10 counts) Making false statements (6 counts) In other words, the Benghazi investigation (which the GOP Congress supported to the end) took 4 years and accomplished nothing, while the current two-year investigation has resulted in, well, results. |
Is this something?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OU7f8wHDngc&feature=youtu.be Washington Post reporter Rachel Bade went on CNN to say that some House Democrats are getting cold feet on impeachment, the White House has also said something similar on Friday. The GOP has pushed out tens of millions of dollars in ads targeting Democrats in swing districts while the DNC has been unable to respond, and as covered previously the polling on impeachment is beginning to turn south. Could Pelosi have enough defections to not even get to 218, or get a razor thin majority? |
Quote:
Especially because they also know about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNqKhRcpktU I almost felt sorry for those three hosts, they looked like they were trying to think up a nice way to tell their father they were putting him in a nursing home. And this: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/24/pentagon-chief-fires-navy-secretary-over-seal-controversy/23866923/ And this: https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/11/23/giuliani-attacks-foes-claims-again-to-have-insurance-to-keep-trump-loyal/23866533/?spot_im_reply_id=sp_IjnMf2Jd_23866533_c_nM7iBB_r_h3lvBY&spot_im_highlight_immediate=true Trump's crimes are obvious, and he himself is exposing them. You can rant about "DNC defections" all you like, all I ever see are Republicans announcing retirement in districts where they could win reelection in their sleep, a phenomenon you strangely don't see in Democrats. Now, I'll ask you a question, why do you even defend Trump? You yourself stated you thought he committed a crime. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I should also mention, Mr. Clinton was impeached for perjury, which is not nearly as serious as bribery or extortion. To be blunt, withholding those munitions from the Ukraine would have resulted in the deaths of civilians, but here you seem to place priority on Biden speaking out against a corrupt prosecutor who everyone knew was a crook. Edit: I almost dare not mention this: https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2018/11/trumps-attempt-to-prosecute-clinton-and-comey-was.html Were you okay with that? |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Comey: Yes, I do believe he should have been prosecuted. |
Quote:
Quote:
Biden and Obama are specifically telling their voters NOT to do it. Trump encourages it. Quote:
Still waiting for you to answer this question: why do you even defend Trump? |
Quote:
Quote:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2019/11/4/20947599/trump-lock-him-up-chants-bernie-sanders-rally Quote:
By the way I have already given you my answer as to the reason I support Trump, there are numerous policies I support, we have already been through this. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
First off, your link is an explanation from the IG about why he is not charging Comey.
Quote:
Quote:
AND, If you're just listing accusations, then why do you excuse the women who made similar accusations towards Trump? And again, WHY do you condone putting lives a risk to defend Trump? Why do you defend a man whom, twice now, you admit is a criminal? Here, read this: https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/ |
please keep this relevant to impeachment instead of yas trump vs. no trump round #477957
|
Thank you, Maedar if you wish to continue the conversation about Comey or Clinton then let’s please continue via PM or VM.
Quote:
Next while I do think he has committed a crime, I am willing to let the voters decide next year if he should be removed from office for it or not. Finally your link, not only seems like just standard Democratic talking points but some of them like the first two do not even reach the level of impeachment. Can you find a source a little less biased? |
I can't really say what the state of the Ukrainian military is, but I'd imagine that they'd really want/need the aid of Russia's biggest not-friend. Russia has been occupying a significant portion of easternmost Ukraine for years now, and if I was Volodymr Zelensky, I'd take just about whatever help I could get in repelling what is likely still one of the stronger military forces in the world.
That's why the aid was withheld in the first place, it's easy to see that saying "no" is a hard thing for the Ukrainian government to do right now. |
Quote:
Yeah. ALT, even someone with a basic grasp of logistics knows the Ukraine would be a sitting duck on its own. I'm just using common sense here. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Two, IMOHO, there is one important lesson in politics that Republicans continually fail to learn, and that is "ALWAYS prepare for the worst, but hope for the best." Republicans tend to prepare for the best, and are never prepared when things don't go as they planned. Again, Trump is putting civilian lives at risk, and that is something neither I - nor the American people - will tolerate. |
Quote:
You say it’s putting lives at risk and Putin can act unpredictable, which is fine but is the aid really going to make that much of a difference if Putin decides to invade? Is a couple of million in military aid all that is stopping Putin from attacking? And even with unpredictability, we would know if Putin was amassing forced for an invasion, he cannot conjure up army units out of thin air. |
Ukrainian President Zelensky has finally issued a statement with his side of the story; the link below contains a link to the full interview.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/12/02/ukrainian-president-criticizes-trump-us-officials-for-spreading-misinformation/23872526/ |
Quote:
At best this just hurts the Democrats already flimsy amount of evidence for impeachment and may give some moderates cover to vote against it. |
That's nor what he said, Alt. He said:
"“If you’re our strategic partner, then you can’t go blocking anything for us. I think that’s just about fairness. It’s not about a quid pro quo.” That does not sound like a confirmation of Trump's defense to me. |
Quote:
""Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo. That’s not my thing," Zelensky said. "I don’t want us to look like beggars." https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/02/volodymyr-zelensky-pushes-back-trump-corruption-criticism-ukraine/2586254001/ |
In other words, he REFUSED the offer of a quid-pro-quo, and he's making an open condemnation of Trump for even making the suggestion.
And Huff Post DID link to the full interview. Here is their link: https://time.com/5742108/ukraine-zelensky-interview-trump-putin-europe/ If anything, this throws cold water on Trump's claim that it was a "perfect call". |
Quote:
Thank you though for linking it. Quote:
|
Believe what you want. I do not see this interview as an attempt to confirm anything Trump said; it seems more like Zelensky is calling him out for promoting lack of trust. And he's certainly calling him out for promoting the conspiracy theories.
|
Two articles of impeachment dropped this morning, the first related to Ukraine, the second obstruction of justice.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/10/politics/impeachment-articles-announced/index.html The second one seems like filler and uniquely stupid as the Democrats did not even attempt to go to the courts to settle the issue of executive privilege. Meanwhile up to 10 Democrats are asking for a censure instead of impeachment, the number needs to get to 18 to start making Pelosi consider it as that is how many it would take to strike down impeachment. https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/10/democrats-censure-impeachment-080311 Meanwhile after everything impeachment polling is getting worse and worse with the public now against it at 51%. https://www.courant.com/politics/capitol-watch/hc-pol-quinnipiac-poll-1210-20191210-azjwntxpxjg2fil6zuqzqx72le-story.html |
Uh, Alt, did you not notice the part of your poll that said, "Biden Surges"?
|
Quote:
|
I also notice you've said nothing about the IG Report, something you mentioned about a week ago.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
It would look better for them if they went through the courts first on that matter, but some would also argue that it's not really necessary to do, that it should be obvious that executive privilege is not an unlimited power and "tell literally everyone not to testify" is not ok, coupled with the fact that Trump has gotten away with attempted obstruction of justice before. |
Quote:
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/12/schiff-confirms-impeachment-of-trump-is-all-about-2020/ Quote:
|
It's official now.
|
And it went exactly as people predicted. Along party lines.
|
Democratic congressman Jeff Van Drew is switching parties over impeachment.
“ Rep. Jeff Van Drew, a moderate Democrat who is strongly opposed to impeaching President Donald Trump, is expected to switch parties and become a Republican, according to multiple sources familiar with the situation. Van Drew is one of two Democrats who voted against opening the impeachment inquiry into Trump and has remained against the effort, even as the House prepares to vote to impeach the president next week. Van Drew's decision comes after a meeting with Trump on Friday.” https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/14/jeff-van-drew-change-parties-085036 |
a ‘moderate’ democrat is a republican by definition so that is hardly surprising
|
|
So I guess the question that is rapidly approaching and one I have heard debated on US talk radio, is what kind of trial should the republicans hold.
Option A: This one goes by quick, the house presents the report, the Trump lawyers lay out their rebuttal, a vote is called to acquit, and everything is finished by lunch. Option B: A slower trial, the Republicans have the power now, and can make this thing as slow and painful as possible right before the primary season. Make sure the trial is going on almost every day so Senator Sanders and Senator Warren are forced to attend instead of campaign, call in Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Congressman Schiff, the whistle blower to testify. Call up expert after expert to say it wasn’t impeachable, and then after a month or two, or five... vote to acquit. Honestly I am all for Option A, the public is sick of impeachment, it’s not a priority and the faster we get it over with the better. However Option B does entice me a little.... |
Pushing impeachment this close to an election during a messy nomination race is a bad idea.
|
ALT, you do know, I assume, that if Schiff is called to testify, he can very well plead the 5th.
I don't know if he will or not, but if he does choose to answer questions, it wouldn't exactly be good for the witnesses who ignored subpoenas issued by the House. For the record, most experts say that what Trump did was, indeed, impeachable, and if you know of any expert who says otherwise, I'd like to hear it. Right now, all I've heard from his defenders is whataboutism, conspiracy theories, and nonsensical babbling, most of it from Nunes and Trump himself. It's really embarrassing if you ask me. Quote:
|
Quote:
The campaign ads suggesting those people have something criminal to hide would be priceless. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I'd like to hear your opinion of THESE legal experts, and I ask, why is Turley's opinion superior? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThuoocI1mLk Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnmk-GEyr78 |
Quote:
Quote:
You can not like the two I suggested, of who you asked for I remind you, it is highly unlikely that the Republicans are going to approve a legal expert that believes Trump should be impeached, so again irrelevant. |
Quote:
The RNC's strategy is, "make excuses for Trump, no matter what crimes or atrocities he commits." Quote:
And WHY is my post "irrelevant"? It's as relevant as yours. |
Quote:
Kind of a version of "Democrats are always right, Trump is always wrong." To paraphrase your previous post, so it’s irrelevant to the topic at hand, to compare and contrast them and go off topic discussing it when it will do nothing more than get the mods pissed at us not sticking to the topic. |
In that case, ALT, we have differing opinions. I expect mine to be respected, and not labeled "irrelevant".
I should also remind you that it does not matter your opinion of the witnesses. Said witnesses ignored a subpoena, which is an illegal act. And I want an apology for my comment being called "some Grade A quality Strawmen", seeing as I was pointing out Nunes' shameful behavior in the actual inquiry. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:48 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.