The Impeachment Thread

[volfanhill]

What is tarnation is going on with these quote errors?

Agreed

 

[BowlBrother85]

She could have gone to court if she wanted those. She chose not to bc this was an urgent matter. Now not so urgent. And every President tries to extend executive privilege. She kicked the can. Even if Mitch McTurtle calls for witnesses you don’t think the Trump admin is going to fight Bolton and others? Of course they will.

That would have taken several months. It took 7 months to finally get a decision from a federal court which compelled the testimony of Don McGahn. And no, I don't think the White House would fight against subpoenas from a Republican Senate. We will never get to see that, though. Ultimately, there won't be any witnesses called. We will only see a donkey show of opening and closing statements and then an acquittal.

 

[Orangeburst]

Agreed

Was Burisma ever exonerated in the original investigation that BB referenced? If not, then I fail to see how my logic fails.

 

[hog88]

When someone asks, "What has Trump done to help Russia?", I can't come up with anything but what I posted. It was directed to someone specific other than you, unless of course, you don't know either

I don't know, please enlighten me. You seem to be convinced so you should have no problem with specific examples.

 

[volfanhill]

That would have taken several months. It took 7 months to finally get a decision from a federal court which compelled the testimony of Don McGahn. And no, I don't think the White House would fight against subpoenas from a Republican Senate. We will never get to see that, though. Ultimately, there won't be any witnesses called. We will only see a donkey show of opening and closing statements and then an acquittal.

Why can’t she wait until it’s adjudicated? Why would Trump not fight the Senate if he thought the testimony would hurt him if they testified? Of course he would.

 

[Orange_Crush]

That would have taken several months. It took 7 months to finally get a decision from a federal court which compelled the testimony of Don McGahn. And no, I don't think the White House would fight against subpoenas from a Republican Senate. We will never get to see that, though. Ultimately, there won't be any witnesses called. We will only see a donkey show of opening and closing statements and then an acquittal.

I disagree. I think we will see a long line of witnesses called--starting with the whistle-blowers, Schiff... I wonder if that's what Nancy is actually afraid of.

 

[hog88]

That would have taken several months. It took 7 months to finally get a decision from a federal court which compelled the testimony of Don McGahn. And no, I don't think the White House would fight against subpoenas from a Republican Senate. We will never get to see that, though. Ultimately, there won't be any witnesses called. We will only see a donkey show of opening and closing statements and then an acquittal.

So she chose expediency over doing it right? Why?

 

[NCFisher]

Oh, I know, but NCFisher is savage.

If that means factually ruthless, I'll take it!
I don't lead with mud, but will put my knife in my teeth, strip naked, and swan dive in when someone is insulting or plainly distorting what I've said.
The Savage

 

[BowlBrother85]

So she chose expediency over doing it right? Why?

Because 2020 is an election year. She wanted this whole thing wrapped up before the Iowa caucuses.

 

[hog88]

Because 2020 is an election year. She wanted this whole thing wrapped up before the Iowa caucuses.

Ahh so pure politics, glad you can admit it.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I disagree. I think we will see a long line of witnesses called--starting with the whistle-blowers, Schiff... I wonder if that's what Nancy is actually afraid of.

I think Nancy would gladly see Schiff take the stand if it meant also hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. The risk of witnesses is much greater for the White House than it is for Pelosi....

....but there won't be any witnesses called by the Senate.

 

[Obsessed]

I think Nancy would gladly see Schiff take the stand if it meant also hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. The risk of witnesses is much greater for the White House than it is for Pelosi....

....but there won't be any witnesses called by the Senate.

Nancy sent over the paperwork yet?

 

[luthervol]

That's a tweet of a braggart.

He has reason to brag.

Merry Christmas to all -

I'm going to try and avoid Trump related negativity as my gift to the PF.
I'm not sure how long it will last, but I'm shooting for at least 2 days.

and a happy new year!

Go Vols!!!

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm not saying that Joe Biden did want his son's company investigated. I'm simply saying, that factually speaking, the investigation into Burisma Holdings had gone dormant at the time that Viktor Shokin was fired... and the entire EU had been pushing for Viktor Shokin's ouster at the time he was replaced as the General Prosecutor of the Ukraine.

That's exactly what the logic of your post indicates--that Biden withheld billions of dollars of aid from Ukraine until they started investigating the firm that was paying Hunter hundreds of thousands of dollars a month as board member and legal counsel.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Why can’t she wait until it’s adjudicated? Why would Trump not fight the Senate if he thought the testimony would hurt him if they testified? Of course he would.

The political peril would be much greater from refusing to comply with subpoenas from within their own party. Not even the Nixon stooges had the balls to do that (Alexander Butterfied tried). It's the kind of thing which could really shift public favor against you.

 

[hog88]

I think Nancy would gladly see Schiff take the stand if it meant also hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. The risk of witnesses is much greater for the White House than it is for Pelosi....

....but there won't be any witnesses called by the Senate.

Except Nancy has no say or leverage to negotiate witnesses.

 

[NCFisher]

No President in my lifetime has behaved as poorly as Trump. That you would try to conflate with a totally irrelevant issue isn't surprising. After all, you're a Trumper

Then you were born after 2000.

No president in any of our lifetimes has been accused - without ANY basis - of being a traitor/treasonous, by FBI, Intel, DOJ, Democrats, media.
Without ANY basis. Then when they can't hang him for being a horse thief, attempt to hang him for trying to avoid being hanged for it.
Not one president in your lifetime has had that treacherous cadre attempt to destroy him, his family, admin members, associates while also - without ANY basis - calling him racist, white supremacist, and perhaps the funniest, antisemitic. My God, the aid and comfort he and Ben Shapiro have given to antisemites and neo-Nazis! You can't make this up, but the left did.

The hell with his poor behavior. I didn't vote for him (or Clinton) either, but will cheerfully do so in 2020. He is the perfect villain-hero for this specific moment in time. These bastids need to be kicked in the teeth and staked in the sun to dessicate.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I think Nancy would gladly see Schiff take the stand if it meant also hearing from Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo. The risk of witnesses is much greater for the White House than it is for Pelosi....

....but there won't be any witnesses called by the Senate.

I'll take that bet. (If Nancy ever sends the articles over.)

So, what's so dangerous to Trump? The only witnesses the House has called have been hearsay and assumptions, along with testimony that Trump told them there was no quid pro quo. I could see the Senate calling the whistle-blowers, Achiff, Nancy, their aids... Getting to the bottom of those relationships and timelines. I could see them also calling the existing witnesses and grilling the hell out of them, without Schiff running interference.

Actually, I've seen that the Republicans have been ravinous to grill them without Schiff running interferance.

You sure The senate won't call any witnesses? You sure the Ds are so all-fired hot and bothered to see them called?

This will be an absolute ****-storm for the Dems if they let this go to trial in the Republican controlled senate.

 

[BowlBrother85]

That's exactly what the logic of your post indicates--that Biden withheld billions of dollars of aid from Ukraine until they started investigating the firm that was paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars a month as board member and legal counsel.

Viktor Shokin wasn't just lax in terms of Burisma Holdings. The fact is, that in the cesspool of the Ukraine, Shokin had failed to obtain a conviction of any major political figures. No oligarchs, no bureaucrats, nobody. He wasn't prosecuting corruption, he was a party to it. The Republican narrative, that Shokin was Elliot Ness trying to bring down Capone, is lazy and inaccurate.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'll take that bet. (If Nancy ever sends the articles over.)

So, what's so dangerous to Trump? The only witnesses the House has called have been hearsay and assumptions, along with testimony that Trump told them there was no quid pro quo. I could see the Senate calling the whistle-blowers, Achiff, Nancy, their aids... Getting to the bottom of those relationships and timelines. I could see them also calling the existing witnesses and grilling the hell out of them, without Schiff running interference.

Actually, I've seen that the Republicans have been ravinous to grill them without Schiff running interferance.

You sure The senate won't call any witnesses? You sure the Ds are so all-fired hot and bothered to see them called?

This will be an absolute ****-storm for the Dems if they let this go to trial in the Republican controlled senate.

That isn't true. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the July 25th phone call. His testimony was that of a firsthand account. Gordon Sondland did testify that Trump told him there was no quid-pro-quo but that was on a phone call that took place on September 9th... well after the whistleblower complaint had been filed.

 

[NCFisher]

Then you should remember the Cigar and Blue Dress episodes and know about the philandering by JFK.

Oh hell, we can do better than that. He was accused of a violent rape. Clinton et al then, unlike the Kavanaugh fishing junket, set out to destroy women that Bill plundered.
Setting aside the debate of whether Starr's investigation should have veered into his candy-striper dalliance, he DID commit perjury more than once, DID conspire to hide, destroy, alter evidence, and have witnesses give false testimony. That's the very definition of obstructing justice.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

So, nothing, apparently.

And I'll add to the conversation. Implementing policy that benefits Russia isn't in itself treason. Much foreign policy has been implemented over the years that has benefited Russia. It's actually the sign of a good leader and negotiator that can come up with solutions that benefit all involved.

You're batting .000 on this one, Kimosabe.

The rationalizations from you Trumpers have to be at an all time high. Trump's has done very little to signify he's a good leader. Most of his actions and words signify he isn't anything close to a good leader. To be more accurate, they represent the exact opposite of a good leader

 

[NCFisher]

...and you should be aware that Donald Trump paid hush money to a stripper/porn star named Stormy Daniels one month prior to the 2016 Presidential election. We realize that other Presidents have had character issues and behaved poorly. It's just that on every single topic, what Trump has done, is just as bad and in many cases, it's even worse.

It's no worse. Congress even has a slush fund for settling the sexual mishaps of members; taxpayer funded "hush money" Got a problem with that?
And it's called an NDA. You know why you don't hear about the Daniels payoff anymore? Because after apoplectic leftists trying to turn that into an impeachable offense, it's a perfectly LEGAL agreement.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

I'll take that bet. (If Nancy ever sends the articles over.)

So, what's so dangerous to Trump? The only witnesses the House has called have been hearsay and assumptions, along with testimony that Trump told them there was no quid pro quo. I could see the Senate calling the whistle-blowers, Achiff, Nancy, their aids... Getting to the bottom of those relationships and timelines. I could see them also calling the existing witnesses and grilling the hell out of them, without Schiff running interference.

Actually, I've seen that the Republicans have been ravinous to grill them without Schiff running interferance.

You sure The senate won't call any witnesses? You sure the Ds are so all-fired hot and bothered to see them called?

This will be an absolute ****-storm for the Dems if they let this go to trial in the Republican controlled senate.

If those inside the White House have to testify, it's over for Trump. There's a reason they've been blocking

 

[hog88]

The rationalizations from you Trumpers have to be at an all time high. Trump's has done very little to signify he's a good leader. Most of his actions and words signify he isn't anything close to a good leader. To be more accurate, they represent the exact opposite of a good leader

So we've moved on from being a traitor who's polices benefit Russia to "he's just not a good leader"?