What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Archie Moses said:
100%.

I'd be the first to admit I'm wrong.

I never heard of her until yesterday. After reading about her, I feel, she's coached.
Click to expand...
Since we probably won't ever know for certain one way or the other maybe we should just give her the benefit of the doubt

What we do know is that climate change is something she has been very passionate for a very long time according to something you posted about her childhood

Then I saw someone who had taught special education and someone else who seems very knowledgeable, truthful and sincere (one brow) talk about autistic kids being difficult to coach to be about to simply call upon ingenuine emotions at the drop of a hat.

So ya, I'm going with benefit of the doubt with a smaller chance at coached.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Zombie said:
The transcript isn't the basis for the complaint. The whistle-blower is.

And as has been posted earlier White House aides don't do word for word transcripts of WH calls, they do readouts which are summaries written by people working for the President. We know Donald Trump has lied about contents of calls and is an otherwise untrustworthy person, anything he gives up willingly is worthy of suspicion.
Click to expand...
How do you feel about the President agreeing to release the whistle blower's complaint? Is that also not the basis for this whole thing? Cuz I'm pretty sure if he's willing to release it it's not going to be the bombshell document you're dreaming of.

Trump is like a bug light for whackadoodles. They're throwing themselves into his electrical grid today at a faster rate than ever before. What insanity!
 
DasJazz said:
My statement stands as written.
Click to expand...
The way it was written was like a gotcha to Colton that he would have to endure a different republican winning the next election.... Which is his best case scenario.
Colton would most likely like the Democratic candidate to lose the next election provided the Republican isn't Trump.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
fishonjazz said:
The way it was written was like a gotcha to Colton that he would have to endure a different republican winning the next election.... Which is his best case scenario.
Colton would most likely like the Democratic candidate to lose the next election provided the Republican isn't Trump.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

I like Colton, his posts are very well thought out. Some of the best here in my opinion.

Still, this impeachment nonsense will be the end to any hope the dems have of getting the presidency, as I said. So yes, happy birthday indeed to Colton!
 
fishonjazz said:
Since we probably won't ever know for certain one way or the other maybe we should just give her the benefit of the doubt

What we do know is that climate change is something she has been very passionate for a very long time according to something you posted about her childhood

Then I saw someone who had taught special education and someone else who seems very knowledgeable, truthful and sincere (one brow) talk about autistic kids being difficult to coach to be about to simply call upon ingenuine emotions at the drop of a hat.

So ya, I'm going with benefit of the doubt with a smaller chance at coached.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...

In other news, Fish is the voice of reason and better than me. Haha

I say that as a joke, compliment, and sincere.


She deserves the benefit of the doubt, but when you read about her, I feel she's being exploited.

That said, I hope we're not headed for human caused mass extinction. I have a lil boy I hope the best for - just like I hope the best for everyone.
 
Archie Moses said:
100%.

I'd be the first to admit I'm wrong.

I never heard of her until yesterday. After reading about her, I feel she's coached.
Click to expand...
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch her. I caught a small bit of something she said and basically what I heard in the very limited slice was (my words) "All of you did nothing so now my generation is taking custody of a planet that is on the verge of complete death."

This idea that absolute doom is on the horizon is a huge turn off for me, because as bad as things can get, humans aren't going extinct. The earth is not on the verge of dying.

We may face massive catastrophes, we may have extremely disruptive events and/or changes take place. We may not have a situation where 7 billion humans are supported. But the earth will go on. Life, in some form, on earth will go on. Anyone who comes out with some excessively dramatic predictions about how we're all about to die lose me immediately.

I'll end up watching what she said, but I assume she's fully immersed in the propaganda of climate change extremists, so no actual coaching may have been needed. I wouldn't rule out coaching, but I think she's really just expressing the sentiment of the circle she's surrounded herself with.
 
DasJazz said:
I like Colton, his posts are very well thought out. Some of the best here in my opinion.

Still, this impeachment nonsense will be the end to any hope the dems have of getting the presidency, as I said. So yes, happy birthday indeed to Colton!
Click to expand...
I love conservatives asserting themselves like this. Like if Dems do something conservatives really really hate it means none of the conservatives that are going to vote for Trump anyway will support any of the Democrats they were never going to support in the first place.

Like, they think Dems need their ignorant *** approval in order to get votes that were never going to come from them anyway?
 
Gameface said:
I haven't been able to bring myself to watch her. I caught a small bit of something she said and basically what I heard in the very limited slice was (my words) "All of you did nothing so now my generation is taking custody of a planet that is on the verge of complete death."

This idea that absolute doom is on the horizon is a huge turn off for me, because as bad as things can get, humans aren't going extinct. The earth is not on the verge of dying.

We may face massive catastrophes, we may have extremely disruptive events and/or changes take place. We may not have a situation where 7 billion humans are supported. But the earth will go on. Life, in some form, on earth will go on. Anyone who comes out with some excessively dramatic predictions about how we're all about to die lose me immediately.

I'll end up watching what she said, but I assume she's fully immersed in the propaganda of climate change extremists, so no actual coaching may have been needed. I wouldn't rule out coaching, but I think she's really just expressing the sentiment of the circle she's surrounded herself with.
Click to expand...

Love this post. You can articulate things way beyond my capabilities.
 
Zombie said:
From this Washington Post article
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html

Zelensky’s “entire” administration was concerned “that the aid that was being cut off to Ukraine by the president was a consequence for their unwillingness, at the time, to investigate the Bidens,” Murphy said, citing his interactions with numerous Ukrainian officials during an early September trip there. Murphy said he heard “directly” from Zelensky about “his concern about why the aid was being cut off to Ukraine,” though the Ukraine’s new president did not specifically broach the subject of a quid pro quo.

Giuliani has basically admitted as much on air as well FWIW.

As for why Trump would pressure them, given we know what there is to know about Hunter's involvement in Ukraine there are two options.

Either he believes there is some malfeasance that occurred that has not heretofore been uncovered, or he knows there isn't and wanted them to make something up. I'm not sure that matters all that much. Trump didn't go through the State Dept for this inquiry, he sent a lawyer from his campaign to make the plea in person. That kind of tells you all you need to know about his motivations.
Click to expand...

Who is "Murphy"? Is he the supposed whistle-blower? Also, didn't the U.S. go ahead and give the aid to Ukraine? Trump is saying they paid it.
 
Catchall said:
Who is "Murphy"? Is he the supposed whistle-blower? Also, didn't the U.S. go ahead and give the aid to Ukraine? Trump is saying they paid it.
Click to expand...
Chris Murphy. I'd recommend reading the article, as it is kind of represented a tipping point in how we got to today's events.
 
Unfortunately, because of the amount of crap this administration spews, much goes unnoticed. This was Rudy in May describing his work In Ukraine:

 
Harambe said:
Would you do us the honor of a fresh thread?
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to start an "Impeachment Inquiry" thread, and, further, I can envision a future "Articles of Impeachment" thread, and hopefully, an "Impeachment Trial" thread, but, I'd feel like I was stepping on @colton's toes to start another impeachment segment now, when here his impeachment thread is peaking on his birthday!(Happy Birthday, @colton!)I agree we likely will need to approach the subject in manageable segments, though, and Pelosi's announcement does represent the launching of that next segment in this historic story.


Zombie said:
Agreed. But there's no such thing as impeachment with guaranteed removal. The process is what is mandated by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Not sure if what follows is what we can expect, but it had not even occurred to me before reading this Politifact primer on impeachment.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/sep/24/How-would-impeachment-inquiry-against/

Could the Senate refuse to hold a trial?

The short answer is yes, the Senate — currently led by Trump’s fellow Republicans — could probably refuse to try an impeachment. While the Constitution stipulates that the Senate has the "sole power to try," it does not force the chamber to do so.

"I would interpret this as authority to try, but not a requirement to try," said Steven Smith, a political science professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

Experts agreed that the spirit of the Senate rules on impeachment, written in 1986, express an expectation that the Senate would hold a trial if the House approved impeachment articles.

But both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Trump have a track record of upending political expectations, experts noted.

Burdett A. Loomis, a political scientist at the University of Kansas, cited the example of McConnell’s norm-defying refusal to hold a hearing on President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, with backing from then-candidate Trump.

"I think McConnell would slow-walk it to a stop, maybe letting the voters decide, even if that was risky," Loomis said.
 
Gameface said:
I love conservatives asserting themselves like this. Like if Dems do something conservatives really really hate it means none of the conservatives that are going to vote for Trump anyway will support any of the Democrats they were never going to support in the first place.

Like, they think Dems need their ignorant *** approval in order to get votes that were never going to come from them anyway?
Click to expand...

I seriously am having trouble following this. I don't think anyone needs my approval to like a political party.
 
Zombie said:
Chris Murphy. I'd recommend reading the article, as it is kind of represented a tipping point in how we got to today's events.
Click to expand...

Yeah, thanks. I read it. Is this all there is? The article is saying that the Trump admin was holding financial aid to Ukraine for a week. It's also saying that Trump was asking Ukraine's President Zelensky to investigate corruption. However, there needs to be some evidence that links these two things, something that shows they're connected and related to Biden--that Trump was holding back funds in order to directly pressure Zelensky to investigate corruption, and to expose Biden specifically.

The article says, "Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage a political rival." Okay, but that's just speculation on the author's part. Besides, the story on Hunter Biden was old news.

The article is questioning Trump's motive, and is insinuating that Trump might have been pressuring Ukraine to investigate and expose Biden, but the Dems need evidence that this is the case and not just a WaPo writer's innuendo. Things like "raising questions" and "fueling suspicions" make a weak case.

Who is this whistle-blower?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top