What's new
By:

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Safetydan said:
The problem seems to be that Trump is ONLY interested in the *very very alleged and likely incorrect* impropriety of Hunter Biden because his dad is a likely opponent in the 2020 election. If Trump has an extensive history of calling other leaders of the world imploring them to investigate random American nationals within their borders, I invite you to find them.

If wrongdoing exists there are avenues to investigation. This incident is not a normal example of that. The only reason Trump called is to get dirt on his political opponent and he appears to be using your tax dollars as leverage. Why are you OK with that?



As far as Hunter Biden goes. The evidence for corruption on his part is questionable at best as many posts even within this thread have shown.

Even if he and Joe Biden had been corrupt in this instance. I still never want my President doing what Trump just did. He's unfit to be President.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
If Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, then wtf was he doing with Paul Manafort as his campaign chairman? That dude helped rob the Ukrainian public of millions upon millions.

His motive is transparent af.
 
Last edited:
JazzyFresh said:
Disagree. I've been nothing but nice to him until I got sick of it. I actually respected the **** out of the dude until his constant nastiness and bigotry.
Click to expand...
Constant? Come on man.
You hold grudges for too long I think.
In this discussion I have treated very similar to how other posters have treated you.
Thing is that if you ask silly questions like "how many times has impeaching Trump failed now?" that you know are meant to inflame/trigger/and upset people then you will get treated accordingly.

Similar to Trump, you make your bed, you have to lay in it. Trump can try to blame the media for how he is treated and you can try to blame me or other posters for how you are treated but it's actually your own actions that determine the treatment you receive.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Safetydan said:
The problem seems to be that Trump is ONLY interested in the *very very alleged and likely incorrect* impropriety of Hunter Biden because his dad is a likely opponent in the 2020 election. If Trump has an extensive history of calling other leaders of the world imploring them to investigate random American nationals within their borders, I invite you to find them.

If wrongdoing exists there are avenues to investigation. This incident is not a normal example of that. The only reason Trump called is to get dirt on his political opponent and he appears to be using your tax dollars as leverage. Why are you OK with that?



As far as Hunter Biden goes. The evidence for corruption on his part is questionable at best as many posts even within this thread have shown.

Even if he and Joe Biden had been corrupt in this instance. I still never want my President doing what Trump just did. He's unfit to be President.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
This is possibly the best post of the entire thread.

Well done

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
Zombie said:


Was it the Watergate break in that did Nixon in, or was it the cover up?
Click to expand...


For those who weren't alive at the time, or just don't know, it was very much the coverup. And the best evidence of that was Nixon's Oval Office taping system recording Nixon actually directing the coverup.
 
colton said:
Glad you agree that Benny is making up crap.
Click to expand...
Where did Trump say "btw don't call me again. I'll call when you've done what I've asked?"

I must've missed that.

Oh never mind just saw the part where he had to walk back his comments. So Trump never said that, he was just stretching the truth and lying. Why the hell would he lie and try to use words that never happened? What's your theory?
 
colton said:
I'm willing to defer to @sirkickyass since he's actually a lawyer. Kicky, what do you think? Are things of value limited to items which have a specific defined monetary equivalent?
Click to expand...

I already won the appeal to authority fallacy battle with Mueller. FWIW, I have a longer resume of directly relevant experience; I'm not shooting from the hip here.

From a regulatory standpoint, FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, also an attorney, knows she doesn't have a case. If she did then by Sirkicky's interpretation he is also implying that she isn't upholding the rules she is charged with upholding. Is anyone going to make that case?

Weintraub knew she didn't have a case that would hold up in court with the Donald Jr.-Russia meeting, which is why instead of filing notice to Trump she signed on with a group who is currently seeking to change rule language to include that sort of thing.

Furthermore, that instance was only applicable to campaign relevant circumstances, not the grey area where Trump's current reelection campaign and his duties as executive overlap.

We are too soon into this one for the FEC to have already taken action against Trump, but if you, Napolitano, and Kicky's interpretation is correct then the regulatory body that has a heavy hand in crafting this legislation has an obligation here. I highly doubt they will.
 
idestroyedthetoilet said:
I already won the appeal to authority fallacy battle with Mueller. FWIW, I have a longer resume of directly relevant experience; I'm not shooting from the hip here.

From a regulatory standpoint, FEC Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub, also an attorney, knows she doesn't have a case. If she did then by Sirkicky's interpretation he is also implying that she isn't upholding the rules she is charged with upholding. Is anyone going to make that case?

Weintraub knew she didn't have a case that would hold up in court with the Donald Jr.-Russia meeting, which is why instead of filing notice to Trump she signed on with a group who is currently seeking to change rule language to include that sort of thing.

Furthermore, that instance was only applicable to campaign relevant circumstances, not the grey area where Trump's current reelection campaign and his duties as executive overlap.

We are too soon into this one for the FEC to have already taken action against Trump, but if you, Napolitano, and Kicky's interpretation is correct then the regulatory body that has a heavy hand in crafting this legislation has an obligation here. I highly doubt they will.
Click to expand...

Weintraub's position is pretty clear.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fec-ch...m-foreign-national-in-us-election-2019-06-13/

A violation of these rules would have to be enforced by....the department of justice, which has taken the position that they will not prosecute a sitting president.

It's not a mystery why a case hasn't been brought, and it's a practical consideration related to DOJ policy - not about an interpretation of the underlying statute. You know, sort of like the Mueller report on obstruction.
 
sirkickyass said:
Weintraub's position is pretty clear.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fec-ch...m-foreign-national-in-us-election-2019-06-13/

A violation of these rules would have to be enforced by....the department of justice, which has taken the position that they will not prosecute a sitting president.

It's not a mystery why a case hasn't been brought, and it's a practical consideration related to DOJ policy - not about an interpretation of the underlying statute. You know, sort of like the Mueller report on obstruction.
Click to expand...
This is nothing short of a conspiracy.
 
sirkickyass said:
Weintraub's position is pretty clear.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fec-ch...m-foreign-national-in-us-election-2019-06-13/

A violation of these rules would have to be enforced by....the department of justice, which has taken the position that they will not prosecute a sitting president.

It's not a mystery why a case hasn't been brought, and it's a practical consideration related to DOJ policy - not about an interpretation of the underlying statute. You know, sort of like the Mueller report on obstruction.
Click to expand...
****.

Shows you how little our leaders have cared when it comes to creating actual protections against sliding into Banana Republic status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top