The Impeachment Thread

#23,781
#23,781
evillawyer said:
Did you read the story? He represented to lenders that his commercial real estate was at near full occupancy, allowing him to get a favorable loan. To the government taxing authorities, he represented a lower occupancy, allowing him to pay less in taxes.
Click to expand...

Yes, and there is no fraud in that. The author probably knows jack **** about commercial real estate and has embellishment.

My wife is the "real estate baron" and knows all the ins and outs of financing. From what I understand when my wife's group is securing financing for a property they give a prospectus which includes occupancy rates, revenue generation, what needs to be spent in renovations ect. they lend money based on that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed
#23,783
#23,783
hog88 said:
Yes, and there is no fraud in that. The author probably knows jack **** about commercial real estate and has embellishment.

My wife is the "real estate baron" and knows all the ins and outs of financing. From what I understand when my wife's group is securing financing for a property they give a prospectus which includes occupancy rates, revenue generation, what needs to be spent in renovations ect. they lend money based on that.
Click to expand...

Read the story. They talk to real estate experts. None say this is explicable.
 
#23,792
#23,792
Mick said:
There are many reasons Trump won the Electoral College, one of which was 10+ years of demonizing Hillary. There's documented proof in this forum. People did seem to vote against something rather than for something.
Click to expand...
Hillary wasn't "demonized", she was called out for her actions. Just as you would say the same about Trump. It wasn't coincidence or right wing propaganda that found Hillary involved in scandal after scandal. From Whitewater to travelgate to filegate to Benghazi to her emails to plenty of other shady things, it wasn't some fluke that Hillary was involved. There was ample reason for people to vote against Hillary, all known by the left, yet they chose her as their nominee despite it all.

I have zero doubt some voted for Trump because they were voting against Hillary, but that should have been easily foreseeable by the left. And it would have been true no matter who the right ran.

Neither side is blameless, so it's ridiculous to try and heap blame on one side while ignoring the blame of the other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Obsessed, W.TN.Orange Blood and BigOrangeD
#23,794
#23,794
TN Ribs said:
This is my favorite excuse by the Red Hat Cult. Every time little Donny gets caught lying, they say he's trolling. How convenient! Fortunately, we all know Trump isn't bright enough to troll anyone.
Click to expand...
Not every time. Come on man. Tell the Truth. nm, you're a DIM. You don't know how.:)
 
#23,797
#23,797
lawgator1 said:
So Trump ordered the aid withheld THE SAME DAY he had the convo with Ukrainian president, and he released the aid AFTER he found out about the investigation spurred by his having done so.

I'm sure these are just coincidences.
Click to expand...
It's highly suspicious, and anyone saying otherwise is fooling themselves. But suspicion is not factual proof. Factual proof is what's missing. And truthfully, that proof could be hidden with those not testifying, but I still don't see how you can go forward on assumption. Before this is all said and done, we may need a judicial ruling on the extent of executive privilege.
 
#23,799
#23,799
Weezer said:
Hillary wasn't "demonized", she was called out for her actions. Just as you would say the same about Trump. It wasn't coincidence or right wing propaganda that found Hillary involved in scandal after scandal. From Whitewater to travelgate to filegate to Benghazi to her emails to plenty of other shady things, it wasn't some fluke that Hillary was involved. There was ample reason for people to vote against Hillary, all known by the left, yet they chose her as their nominee despite it all.

I have zero doubt some voted for Trump because they were voting against Hillary, but that should have been easily foreseeable by the left. And it would have been true no matter who the right ran.

Neither side is blameless, so it's ridiculous to try and heap blame on one side while ignoring the blame of the other.
Click to expand...
Sure she was, Your failure to see the right wing propaganda arm is why it worked. Calling them scandals is proof. For you to even say she wasn't demonized by the right wing media, is the most outlandish claim you have ever made. If you would get off your anti dem soapbox, you would realize this thread is for calling out Trump for his actions, "demonize" if you will. Also the argument that people chose Hillary as the nominee is the same as Trump being the R nominee. Now this game you like to play that the D's are worse that the R's while trying to straddle the fence is something amazing.
 
#23,800
#23,800
Weezer said:
It's highly suspicious, and anyone saying otherwise is fooling themselves. But suspicion is not factual proof. Factual proof is what's missing. And truthfully, that proof could be hidden with those not testifying, but I still don't see how you can go forward on assumption. Before this is all said and done, we may need a judicial ruling on the extent of executive privilege.
Click to expand...


First, I disagree that there is no direct factual proof. The phone call itself, in tandem with the actions of Trump and statements by others such as Mulvaney are direct evidence of Trump's guilt.

Second, even in a trial indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence are enough to convict a person if they are sufficient to establish guilt. In this case, the indirect evidence from the witnesses has been absolutely overwhelming as to Trump's guilt. Any prosecutor would be ultra confident taking this to trial and would not hesitate to do so.

Third, this is not a criminal procedure. It is akin to it. But the standards to indict (impeach) and to convict (remove from office) are even lower than in a criminal proceeding.

The flip side to that last point it that the process is political. Personally, I will think much less of the process and the Senate GOPers if they vote en masse to just let this go. I know why they are doing it. I do. But it is disappointing to say the least that there seems to be a willingness to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to what was a pretty serious offense here by Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JCP201
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top