The Impeachment Thread

[tvolsfan]

You haven’t been paying attention.

Lol.

Calling a Republican “partisan” for hating Trump and slamming congressional Republicans is as stupid as it gets, but feel free to keep digging.

 

[RockyTop85]

??? You saying the video of Biden admitting all of this doesn't exist??

All Biden “admitted” was getting Shokin fired.

His actions were consistent with US policy. This was confirmed by all of the state department witnesses who testified last month, contemporaneous news articles, tweets from Ukrainian parliament members, and a speech by the US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2015.

Rudy admitted on national television that DOJ looked at what he had and passed.

So the idea that there was any impropriety involved or that it’s a legitimate investigation has been debunked since september and the evidence has only gotten stronger that his actions were perfectly appropriate.

So, yes, I’m saying a video of Biden admitting “all of it” does not exist. I find it hard to believe that you people don’t understand the fundamentals of right and wrong that allow every other informed person with a soul to see the distinction between the two mens’ actions.

 

[0nelilreb]

All Biden “admitted” was getting Shokin fired.

His actions were consistent with US policy. This was confirmed by all of the state department witnesses who testified last month, contemporaneous news articles, tweets from Ukrainian parliament members, and a speech by the US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2015.

Rudy admitted on national television that DOJ looked at what he had and passed.

So the idea that there was any impropriety involved or that it’s a legitimate investigation has been debunked since september and the evidence has only gotten stronger that his actions were perfectly appropriate.

So, yes, I’m saying a video of Biden admitting “all of it” does not exist. I find it hard to believe that you people don’t understand the fundamentals of right and wrong that allow every other informed person with a soul to see the distinction between the two mens’ actions.

I’m new to this whole US policy thing so bare with me a second . So as I understand it , as long as it’s policy to withhold money and resources from a country until you get what you want it’s ok . If that policy hasn’t been laid out yet by the president then it’s not ok . POTUS sets the policy . Is this correct or am I wrong ?

 

[volfanjustin]

Spot on.

 

[tvolsfan]

Spot on.

If the next democratic president attempts to rig an election in his favor, I support his removal from office as well.

 

[37L1]

If the next democratic president attempts to rig an election in his favor, I support his removal from office as well.

Well, good thing Hillary didn't get elected then, try as she may.

 

[volfanjustin]

If the next democratic president attempts to rig an election in his favor, I support his removal from office as well.

I don't care what he or she does, they must be impeached

 

[RikidyBones]

If the next democratic president attempts to rig an election in his favor, I support his removal from office as well.

So knowing what we know about the FISA and dossier, would you support the impeachment of Hillary Clinton?

 

[RockyTop85]

I’m new to this whole US policy thing so bare with me a second . So as I understand it , as long as it’s policy to withhold money and resources from a country until you get what you want it’s ok . If that policy hasn’t been laid out yet by the president then it’s not ok . POTUS sets the policy . Is this correct or am I wrong ?

From the perspective of an individual who is so morally and intellectually bankrupt as to be unable to tell the difference between an act performed to further the nation’s interest and one performed for personal gain, that is correct.

 

[volfanjustin]

And no one tried rigging an election more than the barry regime, see the FISA schiff

 

[hUTch2002]

I'm sorry. I'll dumb it down for you.

FOXNews:

Giuliani associate Lev Parnas tried hiding $1M Russia payment, prosecutors allege

You and I don’t agree on much but that did make me chuckle. Well done sir.

 

[Septic]

Matt Gaetz has a lot of nerve trashing Biden for substance abuse and corruption after being arrested for DUI himself.

If anyone heard his testimony, the Congressman's cognitive dissonance suggested it'd be shocking that anyone would be willing to hire Hunter after such a debacle.

It's possible this CONGRESSMAN was the last person on the planet qualified to make the point that it wasn't possible to attain a high position after a poor decision making.

 

[volfanjustin]

Matt Gaetz has a lot of nerve trashing Biden for substance abuse and corruption after being arrested for DUI himself.

If anyone heard his testimony, the Congressman's cognitive dissonance suggested it'd be shocking that anyone would be willing to hire Hunter after such a debacle.

It's possible this CONGRESSMAN was the last person on the planet qualified to make the point that it wasn't possible to attain a high position after a poor decision making.

LOL, says the one who defends creepy Joe and his little crack head baby boy

 

[0nelilreb]

From the perspective of an individual who is so morally and intellectually bankrupt as to be unable to tell the difference between an act performed to further the nation’s interest and one performed for personal gain, that is correct.

Now counselor, you added a few opinions in there . Can we just stick to the basic facts without adding perception or opinion , I get confused easily with lawyer talk . So you are saying what I posted was a correct statement ?

 

[volfanjustin]

Someone had a few beers and drove a car-OMG how terrible IMPEACH
Someone who's daddy is VP knocked up a stripper, refuses to pay child support, got booted from military for being a crack head, left a crack pipe in a rental car, got a 50K per month job thanks to daddy-Leave Hunter alone he's a victim

 

[RockyTop85]

Matt Gaetz has a lot of nerve trashing Biden for substance abuse and corruption after being arrested for DUI himself.

If anyone heard his testimony, the Congressman's cognitive dissonance suggested it'd be shocking that anyone would be willing to hire Hunter after such a debacle.

It's possible this CONGRESSMAN was the last person on the planet qualified to make the point that it wasn't possible to attain a high position after a poor decision making.

I read an article about this last night. The officer resigning seemed plausibly unrelated, based on what the article said.

There were some pseudo shady things that happened, but the results are explained by the officer resigning. In my experience, it’s pretty common that, when a police officer is identified as a bad apple and fired or resigns, their cases get dismissed. No witness, no proof.

I say this as someone who absolutely cannot stand Gaetz and sees him as one of the congressmen who wakes up every morning, paints his face, puts in a rainbow colored wig and oversized shoes and runs around complaining about how congress is a circus.

 

[RikidyBones]

From the perspective of an individual who is so morally and intellectually bankrupt as to be unable to tell the difference between an act performed to further the nation’s interest and one performed for personal gain, that is correct.

lol

 

[0nelilreb]

lol

It’s hard to pin a lawyer down to just giving a straight answer . Lol

 

[BigOrangeD]

Matt Gaetz has a lot of nerve trashing Biden for substance abuse and corruption after being arrested for DUI himself.

If anyone heard his testimony, the Congressman's cognitive dissonance suggested it'd be shocking that anyone would be willing to hire Hunter after such a debacle.

It's possible this CONGRESSMAN was the last person on the planet qualified to make the point that it wasn't possible to attain a high position after a poor decision making.

Should not do that. Hopefully he has learned his lesson. Glad it's not treasonous.

 

[RockyTop85]

Now counselor, you added a few opinions in there . Can we just stick to the basic facts without adding perception or opinion , I get confused easily with lawyer talk . So you are saying what I posted was a correct statement ?

A government official, even the president, having a particular power does not justify every exercise of that power for personal gain. That’s not an opinion, you know it’s not an opinion.

I meant what I said, exactly as I said it.

 

[0nelilreb]

A government official, even the president, having a particular power does not justify every exercise of that power for personal gain. That’s not an opinion, you know it’s not an opinion.

I meant what I said, exactly as I said it.

So you have to qualify your answer instead of just giving a straight one ? I didn’t ask for qualifying answers I just was trying to get a straight answer , no opinions , no perceptions , no left or right spin . I don’t understand why it’s so hard unless my assumption was incorrect . Like I said I’m new to the whole policy thing and how it works .

 

[37L1]

So my name and position got my son a very lucrative job with an Ukraine oil company where he could blow it all on coke and hookers, despite being unqualified. So what? We did nothing wrong.

 

[luthervol]

I’m new to this whole US policy thing so bare with me a second . So as I understand it , as long as it’s policy to withhold money and resources from a country until you get what you want it’s ok . If that policy hasn’t been laid out yet by the president then it’s not ok . POTUS sets the policy . Is this correct or am I wrong ?

It's not hard. If it's unilaterally taken by the president against the advice and wishes of all policy makers and solely for the personal benefit of the president, then it's wrong.
Like with all things, there is a continuum, but this is so far beyond the normal range that any rational and reasonable person can see that it was wrong.

 

[RockyTop85]

It’s hard to pin a lawyer down to just giving a straight answer . Lol

I have given this answer straight for the last three months and in multiple conversations with you.

Quid pro quo: fine.
Quid pro quo for personal benefit: not fine.

There is absolutely nothing difficult about that except it cannot penetrate the bubble created by your need to defend Donald Trump.

 

[0nelilreb]

It's not hard. If it's unilaterally taken by the president against the advice and wishes of all policy makers and solely for the personal benefit of the president, then it's wrong.
Like with all things, there is a continuum, but this is so far beyond the normal range that any rational and reasonable person can see that it was wrong.

If the President sets policy then the advisors thinking differently means nothing correct ? I was under the impression that POTUS is responsible for setting policy .