The Impeachment Thread

#29,602
#29,602
Girth Brooks said:
The fact you have to use “broader” in hopes of encapsulating a charge, is not only ridiculous, it’s patently disingenuous. Either you have the orange dotard, or you don’t. It’s kind of like being pregnant, there is no in-between. WTF does “abuse of power” even mean? Exactly, you don’t know, other than spinning a web of BS about a phone call that seems to only turn up, at best, third or fourth hand information.

“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.”

-Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, Soviet politician of Georgian descent
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman was on the July 25th phone call and "abuse of power" was one of the three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. So, there is precedent for it. I think most people agree that a President using military aid earmarked to a foreign country as leverage to obtain a personal political favor is an abuse of power. It's just a question of whether or not that is what happened. Obviously, the Democrats believe that it did.
 
#29,604
#29,604
McDad said:
Did he testify to a qpq under oath or not?

Does anyone really know?
Click to expand...
I was kind of halfway listening on my iPhone while at work and IIRC he tried to have it both ways.

First he stated, more or less categorically, that it was a QPQ.

Later, and I believe this was under questioning from one of the R's, he had to admit that this was more or less "like, just my opinion, man".
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, McDad and volfanjustin
#29,605
#29,605
lawgator1 said:
He blocked delivery of aid needed by a country fighting our greatest adversary and conditioned delivery of it on an artificial investigation of a fake scandal.
Click to expand...
Except no one has testified Trump told them to withhold aid for that reason. Plus, the aid was released without an investigation being started or even announced. You can screech all you want about how he only released the aid because of being “caught” but no one can prove that’s why the aid was released. If takes more than conjecture to remove a sitting President whether Democrat or Republican.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#29,609
#29,609
0nelilreb said:
Oh come on and the Dem candidates dont ? Have you watched them pander to their people ? Lol
Click to expand...
Roger Stone - "Fifteen seasons of "The Apprentice" not only makes him a smooth television performer, but think of the way he looked in that show - high-backed chair, perfectly lit, great makeup, great hair, decisive, making decisions, running the show. He looks presidential. Do you think voters, non-sophisticates, make a difference between entertainment and politics? Politics is show business for ugly people."
 
#29,613
#29,613
luthervol said:
Roger Stone - "Fifteen seasons of "The Apprentice" not only makes him a smooth television performer, but think of the way he looked in that show - high-backed chair, perfectly lit, great makeup, great hair, decisive, making decisions, running the show. He looks presidential. Do you think voters, non-sophisticates, make a difference between entertainment and politics? Politics is show business for ugly people."
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with the I said about the Dems ? You blame one group and ignore the other . You should have been a politician with your ability and skill to skate around thin ice .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#29,614
#29,614
luthervol said:
Roger Stone - "Fifteen seasons of "The Apprentice" not only makes him a smooth television performer, but think of the way he looked in that show - high-backed chair, perfectly lit, great makeup, great hair, decisive, making decisions, running the show. He looks presidential. Do you think voters, non-sophisticates, make a difference between entertainment and politics? Politics is show business for ugly people."
Click to expand...
Great hair? Is he talking about Donald Trump? I have never heard anyone, not even Trump's most fervent supporters ever say that he has "great hair". Trump has a botched hair weave that looks more like dead grass than actual human hair.
 
#29,616
#29,616
hUTch2002 said:
Except no one has testified Trump told them to withhold aid for that reason. Plus, the aid was released without an investigation being started or even announced. You can screech all you want about how he only released the aid because of being “caught” but no one can prove that’s why the aid was released. If takes more than conjecture to remove a sitting President whether Democrat or Republican.
Click to expand...
Only because the Trump Administration became aware of the whistleblower complaint and what was being alleged in the complaint. They tried to block the release of the complaint to the House Oversight Committee, and once they realized that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't give them any cover for withholding the complaint, they lifted the hold on the military aid to the Ukraine on September 11th and then forwarded the whistleblower's complaint to the House Oversight Committee the next week.

CNN had scheduled an interview with President Zelensky near the end of August where he was going to announce that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens but then the Trump Administration became aware of the whistleblower complaint. That changed everything. The Zelensky interview with CNN was subsequently canceled. The chronology of this fits perfectly.
 
#29,618
#29,618
BowlBrother85 said:
Only because the Trump Administration became aware of the whistleblower complaint and what was being alleged in the complaint. They tried to block the release of the complaint to the House Oversight Committee, and once they realized that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans in the Senate wouldn't give them any cover for withholding the complaint, they lifted the hold on the military aid to the Ukraine on September 11th and then forwarded the whistleblower's complaint to the House Oversight Committee the next week.

CNN had scheduled an interview with President Zelensky near the end of August where he was going to announce that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens but then the Trump Administration became aware of the whistleblower complaint. That changed everything. The Zelensky interview with CNN was subsequently canceled. The chronology of this fits perfectly.
Click to expand...
The chronology does fit what you say the way you laid it out, I don’t disagree with you there. However, that is still just speculation and isn’t proof of why Trump withheld the aid. As it stands today, it isn’t enough to remove a sitting President.
 
Last edited:
#29,619
#29,619
luthervol said:
“I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a “quid pro quo?” As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes,” Sondland said.
Click to expand...
As a great man once said, and now for the rest of the story...
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanjustin
#29,620
#29,620
0nelilreb said:
Oh come on and the Dem candidates dont ? Have you watched them pander to their people ? Lol
Click to expand...
Of course. You keep trying to equalize and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is not the norm but the worst ever.

I will also continue to maintain that normalizing Trump is the worst possible thing for America's future, but so many on here seem intent on doing just that.

It's not a dem vs rep thing....it's a Trump thing.

I thought more would realize that sooner.
 
#29,621
#29,621
hUTch2002 said:
The chronology does fit what you say the way you laid it out, I don’t disagree with you there. However, that is still jut speculation and isn’t proof of why Trump withheld the aid. As it stands today, it isn’t enough to remove a sitting President.
Click to expand...

agree. I'm pretty sure they floated the idea to the Ukraine but I'm also betting they were going to release the aid in any event.

Not impeachable IMHO. The majority of the country agrees.
 
#29,622
#29,622
luthervol said:
Of course. You keep trying to equalize and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is not the norm but the worst ever.

I will also continue to maintain that normalizing Trump is the worst possible thing for America's future, but so many on here seem intent on doing just that.

It's not a dem vs rep thing....it's a Trump thing.

I thought more would realize that sooner.
Click to expand...

Most people haven't lost their minds like you. Most people whether in favor or opposed to Trump haven't imagined him to be the monster that fringers like you have (or fringers that believe him to be the greatest POTUS ever). The vast middle isn't obsessed
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, BigOrangeD and 0nelilreb
#29,623
#29,623
hUTch2002 said:
As a great man once said, and now for the rest of the story...
Click to expand...
Paul Harvey would go on to say that Sonland went on to testify that on Sept. 9th, after he knew he had been busted, Trump said he wanted no quid pro quo and that Sonland would refuse to answer if he thought Trump actually believed that when he said it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BowlBrother85
#29,624
#29,624
luthervol said:
Of course. You keep trying to equalize and I'll keep pointing out that Trump is not the norm but the worst ever.

I will also continue to maintain that normalizing Trump is the worst possible thing for America's future, but so many on here seem intent on doing just that.

It's not a dem vs rep thing....it's a Trump thing.

I thought more would realize that sooner.
Click to expand...

You keep saying that and I keep watching and listening to the ones you don’t think are horrible trying to take my rights away . I’m thinking your idea of America’s future and what others idea of it is , just isn’t the same . That’s why I always remind you about perception .
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#29,625
#29,625
luthervol said:
Paul Harvey would go on to say that Sonland went on to testify that on Sept. 9th, after he knew he had been busted, Trump said he wanted no quid pro quo and that Sonland would refuse to answer if he thought Trump actually believed that when he said it.
Click to expand...

I’m seriously doubting that Paul Harvey would agree with much of anything that’s happening in today’s politics and culture .
 
  • Like
Reactions: hUTch2002, AM64 and Zues1
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top