The Impeachment Thread

#31,926
#31,926
NCFisher said:
Back to your last post - here are the numerous ways it's BS since your source is BS:
  1. The Crowdstrike theory first came from Manafort in the summer of 2106. Some think it originated with C. Kliminik, but appears unknown.
  2. Politico has a lengthy article Jan 11, 2017 (nine days before inauguration) of how Ukraine officials tried to sabotage the 2016 election in favor of Clinton. (that would be *against* Trump)
  3. In April 2017, Trump related the Crowdstrike server theory to the AP.

----notice the dates here? All well before the date in your last post "Trump and Putin had a bizarre private meeting on the sidelines of the July 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg", in which the writer imputes Trump was "influenced" by Putin regarding Ukraine culpability.

So that was crap.

But let's go with the new dates, moving forward into 2019: Democrat Senator (Sheehan) stunned! - by Trump-Russia meme even in 2019!
Shocker news....yawn! and I'd opine the good senator has been 'stunned' for awhile.

U.S. presidents dealing with Ukraine corruption goes back awhile; Clinton signed a reciprocal Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters in Oct. 2000. To hear the left, though, you'd think Trump just invented it as a cover story, even as footage of Unkie Joe is splashed saying "fire the prosecutor or you ain't getting the billion". This is literally walking the razor's edge of Orwellian Newspeak insanity, and hoping some of us won't notice.

It doesn't appear Trump had his mind made up on Zelensky at all, despite whomever was whispering what in his ear. For the third year in a row, he questioned whether the U.S. was throwing good money into a corrupt hole, why wasn't Europe doing something to help Ukraine, and then - third year in a row - released lethal aid.

Which the Obama WH didn't do; can't piss off Putin.
Even while threatening to withhold a billion in blanket aid, denying Ukraine their "throw it over the Russkie heads and noogie them" tactic.

Back to my post which you didn't respond to: how is it a meeting in July 2017 assumes primary importance in your mind, but a non-conservative news site reports 9 days before inauguration that Ukraine attempted to sabotage the U.S. election, doesn't register with you?? Neither does Trump's 3-year history of appraising corruption in Ukraine and U.S. aid, as presidents have been doing for decades? Neither does the conviction of Ukraine officials for that interference in Dec. 2018.
Click to expand...

Have you read the treaty?
 
#31,927
#31,927
AM64 said:
If the senate carries on without the official handover from the house, then can the house come back with "doesn't matter how far you ran, we never gave you the ball?" Like you took it on yourself to do something, but we never gave you the official originating document, so the matter is still open.
Click to expand...
I suppose the House could pass another article next week but, contrary to what has been said here, passing these articles took some degree of political bravery from some of the democrats, which is why they passed it before doing this.

They could always say it’s still ongoing but I mean are the claims this week that he hasn’t been impeached really that convincing once there’s been a vote that we’ve all seen?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#31,930
#31,930
NCFisher said:
Back to your last post - here are the numerous ways it's BS since your source is BS:
  1. The Crowdstrike theory first came from Manafort in the summer of 2106. Some think it originated with C. Kliminik, but appears unknown.
  2. Politico has a lengthy article Jan 11, 2017 (nine days before inauguration) of how Ukraine officials tried to sabotage the 2016 election in favor of Clinton. (that would be *against* Trump)
  3. In April 2017, Trump related the Crowdstrike server theory to the AP.

----notice the dates here? All well before the date in your last post "Trump and Putin had a bizarre private meeting on the sidelines of the July 2017 G-20 summit in Hamburg", in which the writer imputes Trump was "influenced" by Putin regarding Ukraine culpability.

So that was crap.

But let's go with the new dates, moving forward into 2019: Democrat Senator (Sheehan) stunned! - by Trump-Russia meme even in 2019!
Shocker news....yawn! and I'd opine the good senator has been 'stunned' for awhile.

U.S. presidents dealing with Ukraine corruption goes back awhile; Clinton signed a reciprocal Treaty with Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters in Oct. 2000. To hear the left, though, you'd think Trump just invented it as a cover story, even as footage of Unkie Joe is splashed saying "fire the prosecutor or you ain't getting the billion". This is literally walking the razor's edge of Orwellian Newspeak insanity, and hoping some of us won't notice.

It doesn't appear Trump had his mind made up on Zelensky at all, despite whomever was whispering what in his ear. For the third year in a row, he questioned whether the U.S. was throwing good money into a corrupt hole, why wasn't Europe doing something to help Ukraine, and then - third year in a row - released lethal aid.

Which the Obama WH didn't do; can't piss off Putin.
Even while threatening to withhold a billion in blanket aid, denying Ukraine their "throw it over the Russkie heads and noogie them" tactic.

Back to my post which you didn't respond to: how is it a meeting in July 2017 assumes primary importance in your mind, but a non-conservative news site reports 9 days before inauguration that Ukraine attempted to sabotage the U.S. election, doesn't register with you?? Neither does Trump's 3-year history of appraising corruption in Ukraine and U.S. aid, as presidents have been doing for decades? Neither does the conviction of Ukraine officials for that interference in Dec. 2018.
Click to expand...
GOP-led committee probed possible Ukraine interference in 2016 election and found nothing worth pursuing, sources say - CNNPolitics
The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee looked into allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support the claims, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Did Ukraine interfere in the 2016 election? Three questions.

Independent experts say that is unequivocally a conspiracy theory. According to Mr. Trump’s own former national security adviser Thomas Bossert, it has been “totally debunked.” Extensive evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence has shown that Russia was the key actor in social media meddling and the hacking of Democratic servers in the 2016 campaign.

You are a great spokesman for the far right.
 
Last edited:
#31,931
#31,931
luthervol said:
GOP-led committee probed possible Ukraine interference in 2016 election and found nothing worth pursuing, sources say - CNNPolitics
The Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee looked into allegations that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election and found no evidence to support the claims, according to sources familiar with the matter.

Did Ukraine interfere in the 2016 election? Three questions.

Independent experts say that is unequivocally a conspiracy theory. According to Mr. Trump’s own former national security adviser Thomas Bossert, it has been “totally debunked.” Extensive evidence gathered by U.S. intelligence has shown that Russia was the key actor in social media meddling and the hacking of Democratic servers in the 2016 campaign.

You are a great spokesman for the far right.
Click to expand...
"A Department of Justice team led by U.S. Attorney John Durham is separately exploring the extent to which a number of countries, including Ukraine, played a role in the counterintelligence investigation directed at the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. While the Attorney General has yet to contact Ukraine in connection with this investigation, certain Ukrainians who are not members of the government have volunteered information to Mr. Durham, which he is evaluating," DOJ Spokesperson Kerri Kopek released in a statement.

In its most detailed account yet, the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington says a Democratic National Committee (DNC) insider during the 2016 election solicited dirt on Donald Trump’s campaign chairman and even tried to enlist the country's president to help.

In written answers to questions, Ambassador Valeriy Chaly's office says DNC contractor Alexandra Chalupa sought information from the Ukrainian government on Manafort's dealings inside the country in hopes of forcing the issue before Congress.

Chalupa later tried to arrange for Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to comment on Manafort’s Russian ties on a U.S. visit during the 2016 campaign, the ambassador said.

Chaly says that, at the time of the contacts in 2016, the embassy knew Chalupa primarily as a Ukrainian American activist and learned only later of her ties to the DNC. He says the embassy considered her requests an inappropriate solicitation of interference in the U.S. election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, AM64, tbwhhs and 2 others
#31,932
#31,932
Carl Pickens said:
She did, but do you think anyone really cares?
Click to expand...

At a minimum, the democrats care. Additionally, many polls showed 45 to 50%+ support for the impeachment. That actually demonstrates that it had more than just dem support.

People can disagree with Pelosi on a fundamental level, but to suggest she hasn't danced circles around Don is nutty.

Right now, she's letting him sink himself, withholding the articles from the senate was a truly genius troll. She knew he would remind everyone, again, why he's emotionally unfit to hold office as he implodes and lashes out from his rage.
 
#31,933
#31,933
The Full Scope of Ukraine’s Impact on the 2016 Election Has Yet to Be Examined

The "Black Ledger" NABU, Leshchenko, and Manafort.

Excerpt:

Two weeks later, the Financial Times did a story about Ukraine’s takedown of Manafort, including quotes from Leshchenko and Western analysts. “The prospect of Mr Trump, who has praised Ukraine’s arch-enemy Vladimir Putin, becoming leader of the country’s biggest ally,” it began, “has spurred not just Mr Leshchenko but Kiev’s wider political leadership to do something they would never have attempted before: intervene, however indirectly, in a US election.”

“Mr Leshchenko and other political actors in Kiev say they will continue their efforts to prevent a candidate…from reaching the summit of American political power,” the story went on.

Calling the intervention “indirect” is a bit generous, as well. Manafort was ousted based on handwritten pieces of paper—the story would’ve never gone anywhere without NABU and Leshchenko’s vouching for the ledger’s authenticity. That’s as direct as it gets.

The Ukrainians certainly had every reason to expose Manafort’s corruption, and the man’s subsequent trial showed there was an enormous amount to expose. But Ukraine’s efforts also happened to coincide with—and have an immediate impact on—an American campaign. And yet, despite this information’s being available in English, and published by established Western media, we’ve had almost no debate about its implications.

To understand just how astounding that is, simply imagine if the situation were reversed. Imagine the Financial Times ran a story about a Russian government bureau and lawmaker leaking documents that directly resulted in the ouster of the Clinton campaign manager. Even if everything exposed by Russia were true, it’d still be a major scandal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, AM64, W.TN.Orange Blood and 2 others
#31,935
#31,935
NCFisher said:
He's seen what everyone considers an accurate transcript of the call. House Democrats don't dispute it; in fact, they state we don't even need the 'blower or his testimony regarding it. 'It' being a call he was not privy to, concerning a president whom the intel whistleblower rule does not apply to.

Or, at least didn't until someone at intel changed the rule stating only first-hand info could invoke 'blower status and did so specifically to admit Mr. Fourth-hand Whistleblower. Resistance souffle, anyone?

The entire cadre of ambassadors and foreign service bureaucrats who became so alarmed, were spun off virtually one source, Sondland, who - in finality of his testimony - admitted he had nothing more than - you can't make this up - his assumption that a meeting & aid between Trump and Ukraine was predicated upon Zelensky publicly announcing investigations into 2016 interference and Biden/Burisma. So, we pull aside the shoddy, impeachment codpiece to find.....CONJECTURE! - the entire basis for an entirely partisan attempt to overturn an election that the House speaker tells us started 2-1/2 years ago.

-- "What does the country win, Johnny?"

"A big azz ole' impeachment genie that will never be put back into the bottle, Don, since now impeachment truly is any fooking thing a radical congressional faction says it is. Now that Democrats have weaponized election failure to removing a president and overturn the express will of da' people, there are no restraints on either the smelly WalMart people or yuppie scum indulging the worst angels of their nature until, at some point, we dissolve into irreconcilable differences that take us down an awful path we should have learned from before.

Welcome to the New Age, "Resistance" traitors!"

"Oh, and a year's supply of tasty Rice-A-Roni, the family treat!"
Click to expand...

It's not a transcript, is it? You don't win anything but another participation trophy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: luthervol
#31,936
#31,936
BowlBrother85 said:
It means a lot. Are juries instructed that the evidence they review has to be "concrete" ? No. You will never see that word anywhere in a judge's jury instructions in the United States.
Click to expand...
And what someone "believes" would amount to conjecture, or possibly hearsay, which when objected to could easily amount to a judge's instruction to disregard, but, this isn't a typical trial as has been pointed out on several occasions. The thing is, the Dems want what someone believes to mean something, and are pissed that the Pubs want actual proof beyond what people thought was going on.
No one who has testified has been able to say that Trump ordered a QPQ. Argue all you want about those who haven't testified, but it means little because no one knows what they would have said. That would call for speculation, which would also garner an objection in court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs and W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,937
#31,937
NCFisher said:
That's kind of you.
AP supplies it here: Text of the memo of Trump's conversation with Zelenskiy
Click to expand...
Memo! Not a transcript, but a memo. You know what wasn't mentioned in the memo, "corruption". The favor wasn't to take on "corruption" in Ukraine, the favor was to announce a fictitious investigation into the "Biden's'". I see you're last in line.

474eedd077057d951387902379c4ec75.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Septic, RockyTop85 and luthervol
#31,938
#31,938
BowlBrother85 said:
No, you are putting words in my mouth... basically, things that I never said. Juries are instructed that it is acceptable to make reasonable inferences in arriving at a verdict. Defendants are often convicted on what would be described as "circumstantial" evidence. Nothing says the evidence must be "concrete" or from a firsthand account.
Click to expand...
Big difference between circumstantial evidence and opinion. At this point, the Dems are relying an awful lot on the opinions of a handful of people without direct knowledge of a Presidential order.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, tbwhhs, W.TN.Orange Blood and 1 other person
#31,943
#31,943
NCFisher said:
Not in entirety, but through Article 10 of twenty.
Click to expand...
I skimmed it when it was first posted here.

Based on the definition of the central authority in Article II and the prescribed form of the request in Article IV, I didn’t see it as providing any excuse for Trump.

I don’t think anybody is saying Trump “made up” that treaty, but, unless I’ve overlooked something, the argument that the treaty exonerates him is made up.

I realize that was just part of your argument. Didn’t mean to single it out but it’s an element of the story that gets brought up less infrequently.
 
#31,944
#31,944
Mick said:
It's not a transcript, is it? You don't win anything but another participation trophy.
Click to expand...

It's what everyone except Resistance! loons refer to as the transcript, Mick. No one on the call who testified disagreed with the characterization or what is in it.

I'll share my trophy with you, because I like you, Mick.
 
#31,945
#31,945
NCFisher said:
It's what everyone except Resistance! loons refer to as the transcript, Mick. No one on the call who testified disagreed with the characterization or what is in it.

I'll share my trophy with you, because I like you, Mick.
Click to expand...
Only loons refer to it as a transcript.
 
#31,946
#31,946
Mick said:
Memo! Not a transcript, but a memo. You know what wasn't mentioned in the memo, "corruption". The favor wasn't to take on "corruption" in Ukraine, the favor was to announce a fictitious investigation into the "Biden's'". I see you're last in line.

474eedd077057d951387902379c4ec75.jpg
Click to expand...
It's what everyone except Resistance! loons refer to as the transcript, Mick. No one on the call who testified disagreed with the characterization or what is in it.

"Fox, FOX!!" - what, "Nazi!" or "racist!" not substituting for an argument as well for you anymore? Pathetic.
Make yourself useful and go yell "TURQUOISE!" at someone for saying blue-green.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,947
#31,947
NCFisher said:
It's what everyone except Resistance! loons refer to as the transcript, Mick. No one on the call who testified disagreed with the characterization or what is in it.

"Fox, FOX!!" - what, "Nazi!" or "racist!" not substituting for an argument as well for you anymore? Pathetic.
Make yourself useful and go yell "TURQUOISE!" at someone for saying blue-green.
Click to expand...
My argument was simple its not a transcript. Quadruple down on your foolishness as far as I care, fact remains.
 
#31,948
#31,948
BigOrangeD said:
Actually Nancy should be sent to the gallows along with Shifty and the rest of the traitors.
Click to expand...

Trump is either a moron for thinking there is any comparison or believes his worshipers are morons.
I guess it could be both but it certainly can not be neither.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top