idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
For the record, I originally intended to put an emoji after that but they no longer work. @Jason emojis don't work on my android
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
For the record, I originally intended to put an emoji after that but they no longer work. @Jason emojis don't work on my android
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
JazzyFresh
Banned
Anyone wanna bet $50 that Trump won't be impeached?
He just won 2020, and all you weird ****s are doing is making it easier for him.
He just won 2020, and all you weird ****s are doing is making it easier for him.
JazzyFresh
Banned
MOSCOW/KIEV (Reuters) - Ukraine must investigate the activities of Joe Biden's son to establish whether his role in a Ukrainian gas company complied with the country's laws, Mykola Azarov, Ukraine's former prime minister, said in an interview.
Why don't any of you care about this? Not a word from you hypocrites.
Why don't any of you care about this? Not a word from you hypocrites.
JazzyFresh
Banned
For months before that, the US and other countries had pressured for Shokin to be ousted because he didn't make a concerted effort to fight corruption. Biden, who was spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine work, was at the center of these efforts, and threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees from Ukraine if Shokin wasn't fired.
Because Gorsuch, despite being the actual Trump appointee who took the seat that would have gone to Garland, never faced the types of accusations that Kavanaugh faces. So, before you expect me to believe that Kavanaugh is being unfairly treated, you'll have to incorporate why Gorsuch wasn't.
You got any actual crimes by Clinton hidden on that server to back up your sanctimony?
Kavanaugh seems to be doing well.
Or... Daddy Biden won't be the candidate. So who gives a **** whether little beeder's investigated or not?
We have to openly express our concern?
I'm not super concerned about it, but if there was impropriety I think it should be investigated and those who acted illegally should be punished. I feel the same way about all the things Hillary has been accused of. Provide the ****ing evidence and press charges if you have enough to do so. It's simple as ****.
An explicit request to "do this for me and I'll do that" (quid pro quo) would give the Dem's impeachment effort concrete evidence to support the claim that Trump was threatening to withhold aid if Ukraine doesn't investigate the Bidens. Maybe that's really what happened. Maybe there really is evidence out there somewhere that shows this. However, the phone conversation doesn't say that. Not even close. That's why Adam Schiff made up his own dialog during yesterday's hearing and couldn't point to the call transcript that everyone had in front of them.
Unfortunately, legal investigations do care about concrete evidence and not just innuendo or trying to subjectively read tea leaves. This isn't a "weird tendency," it's the rule of law. The prosecution has a burden of proof and has to show at least a minimal standard of knowledge/purpose/intent. The evidence in the call transcript is circumstantial at best, and it wouldn't hold up in a real investigation.
* . * . *
Zellenskyy was the one who brought up the topic of corruption, even using the phrase "drain the swamp," early in the call. It was a major part of the campaign he ran on. He's the one who volunteered that a new prosecutor who supports his administration will be hired. When Trump entered into the conversation on corruption, it started in relation to the DOJ investigation that involves Ukraine, which the Dems seem to know little about, or seem to be discounting. That's state business and not Trump's personal campaign. That's why Bill Barr was relevant to the conversation.
The Dems don't seem to grasp this. They seem to think the only reason Trump would talk about corruption with Ukraine is to try to "dig up dirt" on Joe Biden. They think Trump is trying to use Barr as a personal lawyer. However, when that DOJ report eventually comes out, it will become abundantly clear why Trump and Zellenskyy were talking about corruption and why Barr was brought into the conversation.
Then Trump raises the question about the Bidens, first asking Zellenskyy to look into the circumstances around which the state prosecutor got fired and whether what Joe Biden did was fair. There's nothing wrong with hearing Zellenskyy's version of the details of what happened. That was Biden acting in an official capacity. It's going to be handled by Bill Barr, if anyone.
Trump then goes further and asks about Hunter Biden. This is where it gets murky for me. Why does Trump care about Hunter Biden unless he wants to use that information make a personal attack on Joe? Yes, there's a pretty clear conflict of interest there, but it was years ago. It would be on the periphery of current corruption investigations. Trump is stretching the topic, but he's shrewd enough to be coy about it.
As it stands, Trump released the financial aid to Ukraine, Zellenskyy said this week that he hasn't investigated corruption, and Zellenskyy also said he didn't feel "pushed" by Trump to do so.
Even if you can read in bad intent on Trump's part, where's the actual infraction? It's like saying Trump wanted Robert Mueller to be fired, but actions weren't taken.
It's a weak case.
Last edited:
JazzyFresh
Banned
Exactly. None of you really give a **** about crimes, this is nothing more than your petty #resist movement.
Still waiting for any of you to put your money where your mouth is. $50 says Trump won't be impeached by this time next year. I believe what I say so I can back it up. We all know most of you don't so I don't expect you to back up your fairy tale words.
Just impeached, regardless of whether he is convicted?
Please name the specific crime you think should be investigated. The actual illegal act, and generally what law was broken.
Did we say we don't care? Did any of us say let's not investigate if there's cause?
Perhaps you're the one that's full of ****. Perhaps you're the one asking not to investigate something?
JazzyFresh
Banned
Perhaps
My stance this entire time is unless we're going to go all in a go after all of our corrupt officials than I'm not going to lose sleep or in the lefts case go obsessive compulsive over this stuff. If we're going to drain the swamp let's drain the entire thing. The right are not the only ones that are willing to look past corruption as long as it fits their partisanship. The left is just as guilty. Hillary is a prime example. Her employees destroyed phones and emails. She was the lefts candidate.
This picking and choosing is nothing short of not really giving a ****. Me, I think it's pointless if we aren't going to hold ourselves accountable. That's why I brush it off. This isn't about crime. This is strictly partisanship.
Someone call @Archie Moses back, we've another balancing act.
We can have it both ways. Just because you only see a bit, doesn't mean everyone and everything else is partisan ********. Get off your ****ing cross. We need the wood.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Believe whatever you want. I believe that Gorsuch, Garland, Kavanaugh and everyone else all deserve the right to presumption of innocence. I believe that the media is repeatedly defaming Kavanaugh even though all they have produced are accusations... some of them wildly outlandish.
JazzyFresh
Banned
I see it all. It's you who picks and chooses. Lol why would I be mad at Trump and not mad at Hillary? If I really cared I'd hold all of them accountable. You on the other hand openly admitted you didn't care if Hunter broke the law. You said it plain as day. Between that post and this post you completely contradict yourself.