The Impeachment Thread

[1972 Grad]

There is nothing illegal or violent about impeachment. They can impeach for ANY reason. They could impeach him because he's orange, if they wanted to.

I haven't ruled that out down the road if the other 41 things don't work out.

 

[Weezer]

Plenty of hypocrisy on both sides. Personally, I don't want to see Trump reelected. The problem with that is there's no candidate on the left I want to see elected. I think the country loses no matter what. Times like this is why I'm glad I don't have kids. I don't have to worry about them inheriting this damn mess.

 

[n_huffhines]

My point was all you all want is him gone and by any means necessary is fine. If he was removed violently you libs would be good with it, if libs removed him illegally you all would be good with it.

If libs were fine with removing Donny violently, he would have been assassinated already.

 

[Zues1]

Here's what the left has, a big ole nothing burger. Again.

 

[1972 Grad]

If libs were fine with removing Donny violently, he would have been assassinated already.

I have been surprised that they haven't so far.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Five Dumbest Reasons Democrats Have Wanted To Impeach Trump

 

[Zues1]

I have been surprised that they haven't so far.

I'm sure that option is on the table

 

[volfanjustin]

If libs were fine with removing Donny violently, he would have been assassinated already.

And if someone did you all would be good with it.

I remember when it used to be racist to simply disagree on policy

 

[lawgator1]

Nope. I take it at face value as presented with what reads to me as the standard qualifying footnote at the bottom. It’s the best written log they could provide based on what they heard. If you have any actual information, real data, stating otherwise let’s see it.

So you admit it is not complete. It does not tell us everything that was said.

This is like instant replay of a touchdown and asking the refs to decide whether there was a real touchdown based on what fans of the scoring team say they saw rather than based on the tape.

 

[lawgator1]

Let's see the complaint and here from the complainant about what else went on in connection with this. You GOPers might not be so glib about this then.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Lindsey Graham: Democrats Have Lost Their Minds

 

[1972 Grad]

Lindsey Graham: Democrats Have Lost Their Minds

In before some snarky comment about Graham's supposed sexual orientation from an open minded liberal.

 

[37L1]

Isn't it funny how people can see the same thing, in writing, and come to totally different conclusions?

 

[1972 Grad]

Isn't it funny how people can see the same thing, in writing, and come to totally different conclusions?

Who's on first?

 

[Zues1]

So you admit it is not complete. It does not tell us everything that was said.

This is like instant replay of a touchdown and asking the refs to decide whether there was a real touchdown based on what fans of the scoring team say they saw rather than based on the tape.

Probably offered Zelensky two scoops of chocolate ice cream while everyone else would only receive one scoop of vanilla.

 

[n_huffhines]

And if someone did you all would be good with it.

I remember when it used to be racist to simply disagree on policy

Did you have a head injury? You can't stay on topic.

Topic: Dems are thinking about impeaching Trump.

Jussie: They want to remove him violently

Topic: This is not a violent method.

Jussie: I remember when it used to be racist to simply disagree on policy.

 

[volfanhill]

In before some snarky comment about Graham's supposed sexual orientation from an open minded liberal.

Yea the Trump fan club never did that to Lindsey.

 

[1972 Grad]

Yea the Trump fan club never did that to Lindsey.

Who in the Trump fan club did that?

 

[Big Gucci Sosa]

plebs

 

[Zues1]

 

[volfanhill]

Who in the Trump fan club did that?

I am not going to spend time trying to find them but when Lindsey was running around calling Trump a jackass in 2015 I remember seeing them.

 

[evillawyer]

 

[NorthDallas40]

What do you mean "proof of implications"? We're just guessing. What I'm saying is the use of "recollections" gives them a lot of wiggle room. IDK what the reality is. IDK if their "transcript" is a 99% match or a 70% match with the real convo. What I do know is that you cannot be certain at all that there were no recent amendments, and you seem to be very certain.

And I disagree. I believe it to be as I stated. And you’re still trying to imply that the transcript was manipulated with no basis to point to supporting it.

I’m not guessing. I’m taking the transcript as printed with what reads to me as a standard caveat statement at the bottom.

 

[lawgator1]

Given the reaction to the "transcript," from both Dems and from some GOPers, might Donny change his mind and come up with a reason to hang on to the complaint? Reports are that he is surprised he does not have the power to just end this impeachment talk. The look of worry on GOPers faces is pronounced today. Graham sounds like a shrill hillbilly, which suggests to me that he is also worried about what is coming next.

And Rudy needs to lawyer up. The old saying that a lawyer that represents himself has a fool for a client is an enormous understatement in this situation. Rudy just puts more nails in the coffin every time he speaks.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

Dems double down on impeachment after Ukraine transcript release, describe call as mafia-style ‘shakedown’