• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

News Democrats move forward towards impeaching Trump.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maedar

Banned
402
Posts
6
Years
    • Support for the inquiry among all respondents fell 2 points to 48 percent, while opposition to it rose 3 points to 45 percent.
    Click to expand...

    Uh, ALT? That means 3% more respondents approve of it than oppose of it. And since when do polls mean anything? Most polls are called "fake news" by Republicans.

    And let me post my own poll here if I may:

    https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-co...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1911181224.pdf#page=3

    With the same date as your poll, it shows support for removal up 7 percent.
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • 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

    Maedar said:
    Uh, ALT? That means 3% more respondents approve of it than oppose of it. And since when do polls mean anything? Most polls are called "fake news" by Republicans.

    And let me post my own poll here if I may:

    https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-co...Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_1911181224.pdf#page=3
    Click to expand...

    I noticed you did not address the first poll, merely engaging in a strongman argument. Notice how both polls show cratering support for it among independents. The impeachment is losing more and more legitimacy the longer it goes on.

    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/2019/11/19/7805...-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.
     
    Last edited:

    Corrin

    18,341
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Nah said:
    To be more specific, they want to impeach Trump because he asked a foreign government (Ukraine) to aid him in our upcoming presidential election by trying to get them to dig up dirt on the son of one of his most likely opponents, and deliberately withheld aid to said country to force them to agree to it.
    Click to expand...

    This wasn't smart regardless because once he started talking about everything Biden's son did in order to gain the upper hand against Biden people would obviously wonder and ask where he got the info.
     

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years

    • EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • gimmepie said:
    But again, the Ukranians not playing ball does not invalidate what Trump was trying to do.
    Click to expand...

    That is true but for bribery or quid pro quo to stick, there needs to be proof that Ukraine knew that the funds were tied to doing this political favor. So far there has been nothing to indicate that was the case. Even the Ukrainian President has written a letter to the committee saying that when they finally found out the funds were frozen they thought it had something to do with a military purchase deal that the US was against and not the Biden investigation.
     
    Ivysaur

    Ivysaur

    Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
    21,082
    Posts
    17
    Years
    • EnglishALT said:
    That is true but for bribery or quid pro quo to stick, there needs to be proof that Ukraine knew that the funds were tied to doing this political favor. So far there has been nothing to indicate that was the case. Even the Ukrainian President has written a letter to the committee saying that when they finally found out the funds were frozen they thought it had something to do with a military purchase deal that the US was against and not the Biden investigation.
    Click to expand...

    Well, here's the view from the other side of the mirror.

    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.
     

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • 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.
    Click to expand...

    A benefit of posting online.

    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.
     

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Ivysaur said:
    Well, here's the view from the other side of the mirror.

    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.
    Click to expand...

    Thing is what we think he was trying to do, and what can be proven what he was trying to do are two wildly different things. We can assume as Ambassador Sondland did in his opening statement, and obviously those assumptions are going to be colored by our own political biases. What can be proven though, in terms of what Trump said to his advisers, to his ambassadors, etc etc, is entirely different.

    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/n...appointed-cbs-hosts-impeachment-designed-fail

    Maedar said:
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

    George Orwell, 1984
    Click to expand...

    Is that really the best quote to use when every witness that has spoken has said Trump did not tie the money to the investigation?
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • erik destler said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    Not exactly, just reading the article, he is saying he held it up to have them investigate the crowd strike server, the server that was hacked by the Russians in 2016 that the Democrats refused to let the FBI look at but instead forwarded to a Ukranian company for investigation.

    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.
     
    Nah

    Nah

    15,954
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Age 31
    • she/her, they/them
    • Seen today
    EnglishALT said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    Just need to make sure I'm understanding you here: You personally believe that Donald Trump did indeed commit a crime, but are just playing devil's advocate here, yes/no?
     

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Nah said:
    Just need to make sure I'm understanding you here: You personally believe that Donald Trump did indeed commit a crime, but are just playing devil's advocate here, yes/no?
    Click to expand...

    I believe he committed a crime, I do not believe he will be removed from office because the deniability is too strong and the evidence too thin. I believe this would have worked better as campaign fodder than an actual criminal investigation for a multitude of reasons, from how poor the witnesses have been, to how if this gets to a trial in the Senate it will allow Trump's lawyers to call a multitude of witnesses to make the Democrats look bad.

    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.
     
    Last edited:

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • Last edited by a moderator:

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • 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.
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • 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?
     

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • Could Pelosi have enough defections to not even get to 218, or get a razor thin majority?
    Click to expand...

    She will have enough votes. I would bet the farm on it.

    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/20...avy-secretary-over-seal-controversy/23866923/

    And this:

    https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...iBB_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.
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Maedar said:
    Now, I'll ask you a question, why do you even defend Trump? You yourself stated you thought he committed a crime.
    Click to expand...

    I have already stated in a previous thread there is a wide variety of policies that I support of his, and I have stated in this thread that I believe that while he did commit a crime it does not rise to the level of impeachment, I would feel the same way if the Republicans had attempted to impeach Obama over Fast and Furious or the Iran trade.
     

    Maedar

    Banned
    402
    Posts
    6
    Years
    • I have already stated in a previous thread there is a wide variety of policies that I support of his, and I have stated in this thread that I believe that while he did commit a crime it does not rise to the level of impeachment, I would feel the same way if the Republicans had attempted to impeach Obama over Fast and Furious or the Iran trade.
    Click to expand...

    But you're perfectly okay with Trump and Roger Stone encouraging chants of "LOCK HER UP!" repeatedly at his rallies, despite lack of indictments or charges? There was also the four-year Benghazi investigation that accomplished nothing, but you were fine with that.

    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/artic...tempt-to-prosecute-clinton-and-comey-was.html

    Were you okay with that?
     
    Last edited:

    EnglishALT

    500
    Posts
    5
    Years
    • Maedar said:
    But you're perfectly okay with Trump and Roger Stone encouraging chants of "LOCK HER UP!" repeatedly at his rallies, despite lack of indictments or charges? There was also the four-year Benghazi investigation that accomplished nothing, but you were fine with that.
    Click to expand...

    I am fine with investigations, although I do agree the Benghazi investigation went far too long. "Lock her up" on the other hand has nothing to do with the current topic at hand. Nor do I believe anything is wrong with the chants just as I don't think there was anything wrong with the chants at current Democratic rallies of "Lock him up"

    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.
    Click to expand...

    President Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury to get out of a rape investigation, the proof was far more substantial in regards to that as well, while with Trump it's mainly hearsay. There also wasn't an election less than a year away that could have let the voters decide if Clinton deserved to stay in office or not.

    Edit: I almost dare not mention this:

    https://www.pastemagazine.com/artic...tempt-to-prosecute-clinton-and-comey-was.html

    Were you okay with that?
    Click to expand...

    Clinton: No
    Comey: Yes, I do believe he should have been prosecuted.
     
    Last edited:
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top