The Impeachment Thread

#33,726
#33,726
AM64 said:
Yeah, but we seem to have become a country of the stupid. Charging ahead with bad ideas and ignoring future consequences. Politics is leading the field and the pendulum is swinging further each time ... certainly not a model of stability. I think this could very well become the norm.
Click to expand...
This was a bad idea by the democrats, and it will slap them down for a long time. It can change back to normal starting now.
 
#33,728
#33,728
Orangeburst said:
What if all this washes out and the Bidens are exposed in extorting hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine and other places? You think the American public would see Trump at fault?
Click to expand...

I wonder what political favors were given in exchange for Hunter’s token position? It’s also obviously that pedo Joe made sure it didn’t come to light. Pelosi is worth over $100 million doing a job she’d have to work at 500 years to obtain that kind of wealth. They all want to cover their a$$es.
 
#33,730
#33,730
Orange defense said:
And what crime has he committed again??
Click to expand...

Trump got himself elected, and dims don't like it. That probably counts as mental cruelty and political assault with intent to mentally destabilize. How we'd know if he did mentally destabilize a dim is a really good question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolnJC
#33,733
#33,733
C-south said:
I wonder what political favors were given in exchange for Hunter’s token position? It’s also obviously that pedo Joe made sure it didn’t come to light. Pelosi is worth over $100 million doing a job she’d have to work at 500 years to obtain that kind of wealth. They all want to cover their a$$es.
Click to expand...

You can bet the Hunter's exchanges include unlicensed lobbying.
 
#33,734
#33,734
Orange defense said:
But he didn’t lose.
Click to expand...
Blue font isn't typically needed in this forum.

Just to spoon feed it to you: Dems are upset because they're chosen candidate didn't win (Hillary). That's why they've been trying to get rid of Trump from the beginning. From the Mueller investigation and now to the impeachment sham.

I would also add that they know that none of the current Democratic presidential candidates have a shot against Trump this November. This is their last ditch attempt to try to beat Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tennvols77 and AM64
#33,735
#33,735
Matt2496 said:
Blue font isn't typically needed in this forum.

Just to spoon feed it to you: Dems are upset because they're chosen candidate didn't win (Hillary). That's why they've been trying to get rid of Trump from the beginning. From the Mueller investigation and now to the impeachment sham.

I would also add that they know that none of the current Democratic presidential candidates have a shot against Trump this November. This is their last ditch attempt to try to beat Trump.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to turn Trump into the underdog, but that's just what the dims are doing. In this country that's very definitely not a smart move for the dims.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Matt2496
#33,737
#33,737
Orangeburst said:
What if all this washes out and the Bidens are exposed in extorting hundreds of millions of dollars in Ukraine and other places? You think the American public would see Trump at fault?
Click to expand...
You're playing the "what if" game. There is nothing to indicate that anything of the sort took place. Once again, I'm not opposed to the Bidens testifying if it helps clear things up. I think it's deflection and not germane to the central question at hand (Did Trump leverage military aid to the Ukraine against their President's willingness to do him a campaign favor?), but if it gets the main players (Bolton, Guiliani, Barr, Nunes, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Hyde, Parnas and Fruman) in this story to testify? Then it should happen.
 
#33,738
#33,738
AM64 said:
Trump got himself elected, and dims don't like it. That probably counts as mental cruelty and political assault with intent to mentally destabilize. How we'd know if he did mentally destabilize a dim is a really good question.
Click to expand...
True. He is driving them mentally insane, because they can’t beat him in anything he does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#33,739
#33,739
AM64 said:
Your faith runs deeper than mine; I'm definitely leaning to more of the same and intensifying.
Click to expand...
Now I know that may intensify for a while, but I think Trump will change it. He has said that this can’t happen again. My faith is there that it will change before long.
 
#33,740
#33,740
BowlBrother85 said:
You're playing the "what if" game. There is nothing to indicate that anything of the sort took place. Once again, I'm not opposed to the Bidens testifying if it helps clear things up. I think it's deflection and not germane to the central question at hand (Did Trump leverage military aid to the Ukraine against their President's willingness to do him a campaign favor?), but if it gets the main players (Bolton, Guiliani, Barr, Nunes, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Perry, Hyde, Parnas, Fruman) in this story to testify? Then it should happen.
Click to expand...


“What if” is just as good as “I believe”, “I feel”, “ I think”, and “I heard“.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and tennvols77
#33,741
#33,741
Nobody in the GOP Senate is going to break ranks and vote to remove Trump. McConnell has already said so, before the trial even begins. This will be over in a month and Trump will be acquitted.
 
#33,742
#33,742
Matt2496 said:
Blue font isn't typically needed in this forum.

Just to spoon feed it to you: Dems are upset because they're chosen candidate didn't win (Hillary). That's why they've been trying to get rid of Trump from the beginning. From the Mueller investigation and now to the impeachment sham.

I would also add that they know that none of the current Democratic presidential candidates have a shot against Trump this November. This is their last ditch attempt to try to beat Trump.
Click to expand...
Not only is she mad about loosing, but I think, they are mad because Bill got impeached, and they want Trump out now, so they can say Bill lasted longer than him. They all knew that he was going to win from day one, or they knew he was a threat to win. I wasn’t even aware of his running until I saw a sign in a front yard in early of 2016, and I said wow, I want to check him out. I started liking him after he said he wanted to rebuild America, lower taxes, and jobs, jobs, jobs. It really got my attention when one night at a rally he mentioned pot holes. I knew right then that he was my type of president.
 
#33,743
#33,743
C-south said:
“What if” is just as good as “I believe”, “I feel”, “ I think”, and “I heard“.
Click to expand...
The words you have mentioned, are typically used when a person is 'surmising' or perhaps making an 'inference'. The fact is that juries (such as the Senate during an impeachment trial) can make reasonable inferences in arriving at a verdict. That is included in a judge's jury instructions in the United States. However, 'what if' is mostly used when someone is pondering a hypothetical scenario, which may or may not be reasonably possible. So no, there is a distinct difference.
 
#33,744
#33,744
BowlBrother85 said:
The words you have mentioned, are typically used when a person is 'surmising' or perhaps making an 'inference'. The fact is that juries (such as the Senate during an impeachment trial) can make reasonable inferences in arriving at a verdict. That is included in a judge's jury instructions in the United States. However, 'what if' is mostly used when someone is pondering a hypothetical scenario, which may or may not be reasonably possible. So no, there is a distinct difference.
Click to expand...

All scenarios are hypothetical unless there’s actual evidence and the phrases I posted shows that lack of evidence.
 
#33,745
#33,745
C-south said:
All scenarios are hypothetical unless there’s actual evidence and the phrases I posted shows that lack of evidence.
Click to expand...
No, they don't. A juror can say "I believe that the defendant is guilty," and then vote to convict. Defendants are convicted in this country on circumstantial evidence all the time. It's not always a matter of "I know". Sometimes people are convicted on "I believe" or "I feel". That is just how it is in this country per a judge's jury instructions. The burden of proof for the prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt" ; not "beyond any and all doubt".
 
Last edited:
#33,746
#33,746
volinbham said:
Trump will never be exonerated by 50% of the country no matter what.

This entire thing is a political exercise. For the truly independent voters the question is which political BS are you willing to put up with. If this looks like a coordinated effort to inflate the significance of Trump's actions then it surely helps Trump.

I would imagine most R Senators are in a place where they say even if Trump applied some pressure here that's not a big enough deal to remove him from office; especially less than 1 year from an election. I'm basically in that camp.

If it's shown that Dems orchestrated a process to inflate this and bring it forward to get him then that not only won't get him removed but it will make voters say "meh, they both suck - who helps me most".
Click to expand...
If the portion of your post that I placed in bold is the case, then I can respect that and accept it. It is when Republican members of the House or Senate try to say that Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong, where I have a problem. The evidence may be circumstantial, but it's also substantial. Trump was leveraging military aid to the Ukraine, in exchange for a campaign favor. That is an abuse of power. If you don't feel it justifies removal from office, and you think that Trump's fate as President should be left up to the American voters, and allowed to run its course through democracy? Maybe you're right.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top