Impeachment Thread

[magicalmoments]

#217 above
Thank you for reposting my post in full. It is certainly worth reading twice.
Even with your piece of shit comment appended.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Defended her honour? All I did was point out that there is a difference between an ideological slant (which Daily Kos has) and a poor track record for factual accuracy (it has the exact opposite of that).

6 vs 1/2 dozen

Fox is biased and so is every other media outlet on the planet.

The days when we could turn on the news to get news are long gone, if they ever existed. News @ 11 is just an extended op-ed.

 

[YDB95]

6 vs 1/2 dozen

Wrong. An ideological point of view and factual accuracy are two different things, and it's entirely possible to have both. That is my point here.

 

[magicalmoments]

Oops accidental double post!

 

[JackLuis]

Today's first day of the IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY, was in The words of the Rethuglcunt Council, "Not as Outlandish, as it could be" TO which Bill Taylor agreed!



House Holds First Public Impeachment Hearing into Trump: A Closer Look

 

[gunthernehmen]

Wrong. An ideological point of view and factual accuracy are two different things, and it's entirely possible to have both. That is my point here.

Yes. Mine as well.

The problem is that you class facts you don't like as lies.

 

[My I]

Whistleblower is making a nice living off his lies.

 

[DawnONight]

This is a long read, but it examines and dissects the primary testimony that supposedly shows Trump's guilt. In summary:

No one, it seems, who was directly involved in relations with Ukraine expressed any concern that there was any improper pressure being applied save for Bill Taylor, who admitted that he based his presumption on a New York Times article and not any actual evidence.

The actual evidence is clear: The whistleblower's report completely mischaracterized President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky which, it should be noted, the whistleblower did not hear firsthand or even secondhand. His report, therefore, is nothing more than than the whistleblower's own interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. When that interpretation is colored by political bias and a rather obvious desire to take out President Trump, that perception is not a reflection of reality.​

D. O'Donnell, The Comprehensive Case that President Trump is Innocent, WISN Radio (Nov. 12, 2019).

I challenge anyone who thinks Trump has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment and removal from office to demonstrate where the analysis above is factually inaccurate or incomplete.

Well I will step up and say from what I have seen and heard, about the phone call, and relating events, it seems to me to be very irregular and suspicious. The actions of the WH after the fact only add more fuel to the suspicions.

Now perhaps there is nothing there, and since the president is used to acting as a CEO, and this is how he has acted in the past. Thus he see's nothing wrong.

Someone should perhaps inform him, that World Leaders do not act in this manner, and he should also realize that the citizens of the US do have the right to question his actions.

Perhaps if he had just cooperated now, or back in the beginning, he could have avoided most of this from occurring. Or maybe it would have occured anyhow, but his actions around these matters, only lead outsiders to think, he has something to hide.

People who have nothing to hide, cooperate in investigations, whether they like the investigation or not.

Thank you, Fuzzy1975. So far, you're the only one with the intellectual courage to accept my challenge above (gunthernehmen wrote in support of it). You're also right that Trump does not act with decorum typical of international diplomacy, which is what many of his supporters like about him (I do not consider myself a "Trump supporter," although I do support 80-90% of his economic policies and think the impeachment effort is nothing more than manufactured political theater).

The supposed crime Trump commited was using public money in a quid pro quo deal to get the Ukrainians to resume an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. I offer a set of undisputed facts and ask you, and anyone else who would like to chime in, if you can explain why these facts alone do not exonerate the president of that charge.

• There is no quid pro quo suggested in the phone call, of which we have a transcript.
• The Ukrainian leadership has stated it never thought there was a quid pro quo being offered.
• The Ukrainian leadership has stated it did not even know a hold was placed on the aid money in question.
• The aid money in question was released even though no investigation of the Bidens was resumed.

All testimony suggesting that there was a quid pro quo relationship has been couched in terms of "feelings" or "opinions," or based on second and third hand hearsay that cannot be confirmed with any original source. Let me ask you, Fuzzy1975: if you were on a jury, would you find guilt in any of that?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

The supposed crime Trump commited was using public money in a quid pro quo deal to get the Ukrainians to resume an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. I offer a set of undisputed facts and ask you, and anyone else who would like to chime in, if you can explain why these facts alone do not exonerate the president of that charge.

• There is no quid pro quo suggested in the phone call, of which we have a transcript.;

• 
  
  There is no verbatim transcript, what was released is a compendium of the call.
  
  

  [*]The Ukrainian leadership has stated it never thought there was a quid pro quo being offered.

  
  If the shoes were on your feet, and you were the one looking for "aid". Knowing full well the way Trump acts, would you admit to a quid pro quo, and risk pissing him off? At a later statement, Volodymyr Zelensky walked back the statement, that "no one pressured me" to "no one can pressure me". Now given Zelinsky's native language is not English, it can lead one to think he may have misspoke earlier.
  
  
  

  [*]The Ukrainian leadership has stated it did not even know a hold was placed on the aid money in question.

  
  I don't know which one to believe on the above ( did know, didn't know)I have not made up my mind.
  It is not a "fact" to me.
  
  

  [*]The aid money in question was released even though no investigation of the Bidens was resumed.

  
  Which means what? The date it was released was after the call, and after the transcript release too, ( I have to check the dates) I think. The fact the money was released with no reciprocating action by the Ukraine government, is not a "fact" proving there was no attempt at a quid pro quo.
  
  

  All testimony suggesting that there was a quid pro quo relationship has been couched in terms of "feelings" or "opinions," or based on second and third hand hearsay that cannot be confirmed with any original source. Let me ask you, Fuzzy1975: if you were on a jury, would you find guilt in any of that?

  
  Right now I have not made up my mind. I am watching the hearings when I can ( I did get to see all of yesterdays) and reading news on the subject from a wide variety of news organizations. CBC,BBC,Routers,MSNBC,Fox,CNN,NPR, etc etc. I will be frank and honest, I have great issues with Fox's coverage, not so much the Fox new section ( I do think Shep leaving has robbed Fox of a huge amount of credibility), but with the late night opinion group. They are to me, only pushing one side, as such they are not "news", but solely offering up their opinion ( to the point of propaganda if you ask me, after what I saw last night, compared to the hearings I watched yesterday). CNN is not much better than Fox at night, they tend to push the left side, but at least they offer dissenting guest opinions on their late night opinion shows.

 

[icanhelp1]

#217 above
Thank you for reposting my post in full. It is certainly worth reading twice.
Even with your piece of shit comment appended.

Well, I had to read it twice, I was hoping to discern a new point of view, one not embellished or wrapped in your typical looney biased innuendos. Perhaps a new and interesting tidbit, something other than one of your usual TDS factoids, which are really starting to get boring. Well, you did have a somewhat control of your TDS but your talent for grasping the obvious was on full display. To put in into your word "piece of shit comment". Just more run on sentences filled with generalities and of no particular value.

Cases for obstruction of justice "mueller report" and why it matters.

My point, if dems try to include arguments for obstruction of justice from the Mueller report ( part II ) it will fail in the senate trial. Part II should have never happened. A DOJ criminal investigation is a secret document that does not require a public release. After the Trump/Russian conspiracy to interfere with the elections was found non-indictable and satisfied the original intent of the investigation everything after that is harassment, all charges after that become process crimes, used to support a crime never committed and may not have standing in a court of law. The only way to use obstruction in this case is for a political battle. That's the real reason Mueller didn't indict. Mueller and Wiesmann overstepped their boundaries by extending the investigation after Trump was found not indictable and they knew it. Public release of the Mueller report was the ploy used to politicize the report and allow it to become fodder for the congressional dems in an attempt to initiate an impeachment process. It failed!! If you investigate a car theft and exculpatory evidence provides relief for the accused a prosecutor cannot keep trying the individual till another crime is hopefully found, when the results of legal prosecution for a crime and the defendant is found to be not guilty the case it's acquitted and closed. Now we have to deal with idiots who have no concept or understanding of the statutes that govern Extortion and Bribery and don't understand the difference between a crime and oversight responsibilities.

 

[Dumpington]

I was reading Michael Goodwin's assessment of the impeachment inquiries in today's New York Post, and he nails it!

Adam Schiff’s dull impeachment hearings are a flop

Is that it? Is that all they’ve got?

Day One of impeachment was not exactly must-see TV. Sure, it was interesting and substantive at times, which would be compliments if this were a graduate school seminar about the lonely lives and confusing experiences of far-flung diplomats. But this was a congressional hearing to determine whether to file charges against and ultimately remove the president of the United States. By that standard, the Adam Schiff show was a FLOP.

I would call it a sensational flop, except that would suggest a sense of drama the day never produced. A five-hour slog that doesn’t hit pay dirt or end up anywhere meaningful can’t be sensational. The "Schiff show" was more of a quiet, methodical flop. Imagine a slow leak in a big balloon and you’ll get the picture.

Still, the impact is significant. At the start of the day, impeachment was a one-party fever, and so it remains. Nothing that happened Wednesday changes that critical dynamic. At this point, time and public patience are not the impeachers’ friends.

The lack of surprising or even new developments are major strikes against them. They have the burden of proving their hatred for President Trump is based on something other than resentment over his election or his tweets. That should be a fairly low bar, but they couldn’t get over it. Although the hearing wasn’t as boring as was special counsel Robert Mueller’s hapless final appearance, it certainly didn’t move the Dems closer to their goal of running Trump out of town.

The performances of acting Ukraine Ambassador William Taylor and State Department official George Kent left the impression there is little or nothing more to want. Everything to come likely will offer only more detail about the things we already know. As several GOP members argued, it is impossible to prove the allegations of a quid pro quo when Ukraine got the American aid even though it never promised to investigate that country’s role in the 2016 election or the hiring of Hunter Biden by an energy company for $50,000 a month when his father was vice president.

That idea was captured best when Ohio Republican Jim Jordan got Taylor to acknowledge he had three meetings with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky over a 55-day period after the Trump phone call. Not once, Jordan said and Taylor agreed, did Zelensky complain that Trump was pressuring him to do the investigation or that there had been a holdup in aid.

“And you’re their star witnesses,” Jordan said, which got a laugh out of Taylor and many in the room.

Democrats obviously fear a fair and complete investigation of all the facts, one that reveals their contacts with the whistleblower, his political connections and all the events involving Ukraine and the Bidens.

What are they hiding?

 

[Fuzzy1975]

“And you’re their star witnesses,” Jordan said, which got a laugh out of Taylor and many in the room.

What hearing were you watching?

Taylor did not laugh. He vehemently denied he was there to do anything but testify to what he knew.

To me, an outsider ( non citizen, non US voter), Jordan did nothing but spew out irrelevant issues related to the inquiry. ( if you are a fervent supporter of Trump, I'm sure it made you all smile though)

He should either try to get to the bottom of the "quid pro quo" issue. Or get out the door.

If the Republicans want to investigate the other issues fine, do that, but keep that crap out of this inquiry.

 

[Dumpington]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "To me, an outsider (non citizen, non US voter), Jordan did nothing but spew out irrelevant issues related to the inquiry. (if you are a fervent supporter of Trump, I'm sure it made you all smile though)"

As an outsider, I will try and explain things to you.

The Democartic Party has wanted to impeach President Trump ever since he defeated Hillary Clinton back on November 8, 2016 - which Adam Schiff (and other Democrats) insist that Trump ONLY won because his campaign colluded with the Russians (and ALSO because of that pesky Electoral College that all Democrats hate!) The Dems openly acknowledge that it was the Obama administration that stood by and did nothing while Russia freely attempted to meddle in our elections!

In the aftermath, Robert Mueller was then hired to investigate President Trump, which he proceeded to do for the next two-&-a-half years at a cost of $30-million to America's taxpayers. Schiff said that Russia collusion was REAL, but the Mueller report ruled otherwise. But the Democratic Party STILL wanted Trump impeached.

When their party gained 40-House seats in the 2018 midterms, the Democrats celebrated! Now they'd have the votes to impeach Trump, and all they needed was an excuse. Enter Joe Biden & the Ukraine. Everybody's already heard the former vice-president bragging on camera about how he'd held up a billion-dollar aid package to the Ukraine if they didn't immediately fire a special prosecutor, and Trump wanted the government of that nation to look into it. Trump didn't block ANY aid from ever reaching the Ukraine.

Anyway, the Democrats decided to make THIS their issue, knowing that they have enough votes to make their dream a reality. Trump will be impeached, just like Bill Clinton was. But the PROBLEM is in the U.S. Senate, where in those same 2018 midterm elections, Republicans only got STRONGER - and as only the U.S. Senate can remove a president from office, the Democratics lack anywhere NEAR enough votes to make it happen!

In the end, President Trump wins vindication in the U.S. Senate - Adam Schiff & the Democrats LOSE in public on a national stage - and President Trump uses their failed coup/witchhunt to oust him as a campaign issue to win re-election in 2020!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "To me, an outsider (non citizen, non US voter), Jordan did nothing but spew out irrelevant issues related to the inquiry. (if you are a fervent supporter of Trump, I'm sure it made you all smile though)"

As an outsider, I will try and explain things to you.

I do not need you, of all people to, "explain" to me about this. I can read, hear, and think!

What you should do, as a Republican, is decide, do I really want this person at the helm? +12,000 + lies and counting, emolument issues piling up to the ceiling, family employed in the administration ( not since Kennedy), his own appointee's claim it was a quid pro quo!

I think you might be far better served with Pence at the helm.

I state I am an outsider, not out of ignorance, only that I have no political bias. I call it as I see,hear and think it!

As soon as you can make that same claim, feel free to reply back.

 

[Dumpington]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "I do not need you, of all people to, "explain" to me about this. I can read, hear, and think!"

Excuse me, but YOU'RE the one who wrote that you're an "outsider (non citizen, non US voter)," - whereas I AM a U.S. citizen & voter, who understands how our U.S. Constitution works!

"I think you might be far better served with Pence at the helm."

Yes, America will be far better served with Mike Pence in the White House than any of the current Democratic Party candidates (I certainly agree with you THERE), only Pence won't be on the ballot until November of 2024, as President Trump's second term comes to a close.

"I state I am an outsider, not out of ignorance, only that I have no political bias. I call it as I see, hear and think it!"

The Democratic Party here in the U.S. opposes President Trump primarily because he defeated Hillary Clinton back on November 8, 2016. They will NEVER forgive him (or the Electoral College) for what happened on that night!

"As soon as you can make that same claim, feel free to reply back."

And until the House Democrats are free of bias, they should NOT be attempting to remove a freely-elected president from office. But our U.S. Constitution works, Fuzzy, and their efforts to end the Trump-presidency will FAIL in the U.S. Senate! Watch & learn!

 

[gunthernehmen]

The Democartic Party has wanted to impeach President Trump ever since he defeated Hillary Clinton back on November 8, 2016

I don't have anything to add. I just like seeing that statement.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "I do not need you, of all people to, "explain" to me about this. I can read, hear, and think!"

Excuse me, but YOU'RE the one who wrote that you're an "outsider (non citizen, non US voter)," - whereas I AM a U.S. citizen & voter, who understands how our U.S. Constitution works![/Quote}

And what makes you think I don't know about your constitution? My nephew is a US navy vet, ( who also picked trump to win, btw prior to the election)I have two nieces living in the US. I may have taken US Constitutional History as an elective in college.
Just because you reside permanently in the US does not necessarily mean you are superior in your knowledge by that fact alone above and beyond all non residents. I do not profess to know all, and have only minor first hand experience since I have only been working on and off again in the US since the early 2000's.

The Democratic Party here in the U.S. opposes President Trump primarily because he defeated Hillary Clinton back on November 8, 2016. They will NEVER forgive him (or the Electoral College) for what happened on that night! [/Quote}

The same applied to Obama, and the Republicans did everything to stand in his way, especially after the 2012 election. If an valid opportunity arose, I am 100% sure the Republicans would have used impeachment. ( note I am not supporting Obama here, nor opposing, just telling you as I see it, from outside, looking in).

"As soon as you can make that same claim, feel free to reply back."

You still are promoting your own belief/bias. Recall I am not.

 

[icanhelp1]

I do not need you, of all people to, "explain" to me about this. I can read, hear, and think!

What you should do, as a Republican, is decide, do I really want this person at the helm? +12,000 + lies and counting, emolument issues piling up to the ceiling, family employed in the administration ( not since Kennedy), his own appointee's claim it was a quid pro quo!

I think you might be far better served with Pence at the helm.

I state I am an outsider, not out of ignorance, only that I have no political bias. I call it as I see,hear and think it!

As soon as you can make that same claim, feel free to reply back.

Well, I decided!!! I don't carry water for Trump but I would rather support a Captain that may be a little boisterous, exaggerates some but does have genuine interest in the wellbeing of his constituents. Most people don't care if members of the family work for him, after all, they're working for the American people free of charge.

The 4th U.S. circuit court of appeals dismissed lawsuit alleging emolument clause violation.
Some of his own appointees are deep state, Chameleons! Obama's whistleblowers were fired, not protected, just to illustrate the double standard the dems so readily demonstrate.

 

[gunthernehmen]

The same applied to Obama, and the Republicans did everything to stand in his way, especially after the 2012 election. If an valid opportunity arose, I am 100% sure the Republicans would have used impeachment. ( note I am not supporting Obama here, nor opposing, just telling you as I see it, from outside, looking in)

Not even CLOSE to the truth. The right stood by and (some loudly) griped while Obama systematically set us back 20 or 30 years.

The left, since Trump DEFEATED Hillary, has been pulling out all stops, getting injunctions, suing, roadblocks, finding ANYTHING they can throw at the wall in desperate hopes it will stick.

The right has been paying attention and the next Dem president (possibly after Pence's second term, so around 2032) will have a HELL of a battle on their hands.

 

[icanhelp1]

Not even CLOSE to the truth. The right stood by and (some loudly) griped while Obama systematically set us back 20 or 30 years.

The left, since Trump DEFEATED Hillary, has been pulling out all stops, getting injunctions, suing, roadblocks, finding ANYTHING they can throw at the wall in desperate hopes it will stick.

The right has been paying attention and the next Dem president (possibly after Pence's second term, so around 2032) will have a HELL of a battle on their hands.

Fuzzy's passive bias is quite comical. Me thinks he has voices in his head!

 

[gunthernehmen]

Fuzzy's passive bias is quite comical. Me thinks he has voices in his head!

I'm just continually amazed at the fascination Canadians, Australians and Europeans seem to have with American politics.

Don't they have domestic issues of their own to worry about?

 

[JackLuis]

Adam Schiff tosses Mulvaney’s ‘get over it’ remark back in his face as he makes the case for Trump’s impeachment

“The issue that we confront is the one posed by the president’s acting chief of staff (Mick Mulvaney), when he challenged Americans to ‘get over it,'” Schiff said. “If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce or extort or bribe an ally into conducting investigations to aid his re-election campaign and did so by withholding official acts, a White House meeting or hundreds millions of dollars of needed military aid, must we simply ‘get over it’?”

“Is this what Americans should expect from their president?” he continued. “If this is not impeachable conduct, what is? Does the oath of office itself requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a Constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition, so we become no monarchy, still have meaning? These are the questions we must ask and answer, without rancor, if we can, without delay, regardless, and without party favor and without prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities.”

Nunes and Jordan are the face of the Rethuglicunts now, get over it losers!

 

[JackLuis]

‘Republicans were chasing their tails’: MSNBC’s Morning Joe mocks GOP’s ‘laughable defenses’ in impeachment hearings

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough thinks Day One of the public impeachment hearings went well for Democrats, and placed even more pressure on President Donald Trump’s ambassador to the European Union.

The “Morning Joe” host said House Democrats largely avoided the mistakes they made during special counsel Robert Mueller’s testimony this summer, and he said testimony from two State Department witnesses delivered damaging new information.

Joe has lost the Happy Rethuglicunt giggle as Trump beat Hillz. Now he is a Never Trumper, who gave Donnie boy the leg up with Free Publicity.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "To me, an outsider (non citizen, non US voter), Jordan did nothing but spew out irrelevant issues related to the inquiry. (if you are a fervent supporter of Trump, I'm sure it made you all smile though)"

As an outsider, I will try and explain things to you.

The Democartic Party has wanted to impeach President Trump ever since he defeated Hillary Clinton back on November 8, 2016 - which Adam Schiff (and other Democrats) insist that Trump ONLY won because his campaign colluded with the Russians (and ALSO because of that pesky Electoral College that all Democrats hate!) The Dems openly acknowledge that it was the Obama administration that stood by and did nothing while Russia freely attempted to meddle in our elections!

In the aftermath, Robert Mueller was then hired to investigate President Trump, which he proceeded to do for the next two-&-a-half years at a cost of $30-million to America's taxpayers. Schiff said that Russia collusion was REAL, but the Mueller report ruled otherwise. But the Democratic Party STILL wanted Trump impeached.

When their party gained 40-House seats in the 2018 midterms, the Democrats celebrated! Now they'd have the votes to impeach Trump, and all they needed was an excuse. Enter Joe Biden & the Ukraine. Everybody's already heard the former vice-president bragging on camera about how he'd held up a billion-dollar aid package to the Ukraine if they didn't immediately fire a special prosecutor, and Trump wanted the government of that nation to look into it. Trump didn't block ANY aid from ever reaching the Ukraine.

Anyway, the Democrats decided to make THIS their issue, knowing that they have enough votes to make their dream a reality. Trump will be impeached, just like Bill Clinton was. But the PROBLEM is in the U.S. Senate, where in those same 2018 midterm elections, Republicans only got STRONGER - and as only the U.S. Senate can remove a president from office, the Democratics lack anywhere NEAR enough votes to make it happen!

In the end, President Trump wins vindication in the U.S. Senate - Adam Schiff & the Democrats LOSE in public on a national stage - and President Trump uses their failed coup/witchhunt to oust him as a campaign issue to win re-election in 2020!

Actually, the Dems wanted to prevent Trump from becoming president, either by somehow redoing the 2016 election or by persuading the electors to vote contrary to the instructions of the voters in some states. Their efforts to impeach began on Jan. 20, 2017 and have been continuing since that date.

 

[icanhelp1]

I'm just continually amazed at the fascination Canadians, Australians and Europeans seem to have with American politics.

Don't they have domestic issues of their own to worry about?

Now you went and did it!! LOL Magicalmoments is going to hunt you down. One thing they all have in common: they hate Trump!! You'd think Trump personally fucked them over. They are Obama loyalist hiding behind their own borders as observers but sure make you aware of their opinions. If they only knew how corrupt the Obama regime really was. When yo bring up the shit Obama got away with they hide behind " WHATABOUTISM " or "Obama is not president right now" Deflect from the fact that Dems exist in a parallel universe of double standard where "what's good for the goose is not good for the gander". I'm amused by the fake contrarian views where: Trump bad! Obama good! To listen to them, their backyard is perfect, even utopian like, and proclaim to have all the answers to our problems. You try to have a dialogue with them and they insult you. I'm tired of their insults.