The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Yeah I've heard your spin on this situation laid out plenty already.

That isn't spin. It's a fact that Trump had to declassify the conversation and needed to get Zellenskyy's agreement to do it. All presidential conversations, especially with other heads of state, are privileged. That conversation had several sensitive topics in it from Ukraine's side as well as from the U.S. side.

You continue to ignore the troubling reality that Trump only asks about Ukrainian corruption as it pertains to his political adversaries.

No, you are repeatedly ignoring the fact that the DNC, FBI and CIA have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department since May of this year. That investigation involves Ukraine quite heavily. Zellenskyy is fully aware of it. It's a very relevant topic to U.S./Ukraine relations, and one that Zellenskyy first broached in the phone call.

I keep posting articles about this, from a variety of sources, but the pro-impeach zealots like you don't want to acknowledge it because it shows that Trump discussing corruption involving the Democrats in Ukraine is legitimate. This is going to come out in the impeachment process, and this is where I think the Dems are in for a let-down.

And in the case of the Bidens you continue to ignore the reality of Joe Biden's position on the corrupt prosecutor. That is that Joe pushing for a new Ukrainian prosecutor made Burisma more likely to be prosecuted, not less.

Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

 

[JazzGal]

Not by Kavanaugh... Derp...

Check out the stories of Bill Cosby's victims. Dozens to choose from.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

That isn't spin. It's a fact that Trump had to declassify the conversation and needed to get Zellenskyy's agreement to do it. All presidential conversations, especially with other heads of state, are privileged. That conversation had several sensitive topics in it from Ukraine's side as well as from the U.S. side.



No, you are repeatedly ignoring the fact that the DNC, FBI and CIA have been under investigation for corruption by the Justice Department since May of this year. That investigation involves Ukraine quite heavily. Zellenskyy is fully aware of it. It's a very relevant topic to U.S./Ukraine relations, and one that Zellenskyy first broached in the phone call.

I keep posting articles about this, from a variety of sources, but the pro-impeach zealots like you don't want to acknowledge it because it shows that Trump discussing corruption involving the Democrats in Ukraine is legitimate. This is going to come out in the impeachment process, and this is where I think the Dems are in for a let-down.



Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

That investigation into the DNC and others is based on a right wing conspiracy that there's a hidden server in Ukraine thats meant to prove that the attacks on the DNC and Hillary in 2016 was an inside job. I don't think anyone here, outside of Trump supporters, has any faith that this probe by Barr is based in good faith. It's just another example of the Trump administration targeting his political opponents in investigations.

As for Biden, it's been well established that the Ukrainian prosecutor was not cooperating with the UK government in their investigation into Burisma. Bidens threat to withhold aid was just one part of multinational effort to fight actual corruption in Ukraine. If that aid was withheld to encourage an investigation into Obama's political enemies you might have a point here.

 

[The Thriller]

I mean, Shokin's claim that there were never complaints about his performance before Biden got involved is just crazy. There's photos of protests, all from Ukrainians, specifically about him some six months before Biden's involvement.

View attachment 8279 View attachment 8280

Shokin was one of the least popular people in the country in Fall of 2015 through spring of 2016. Acting like he was doing a recognized good job until the Americans came in and took it from him is a truly laughable statement.

The person he's swearing a statement on behalf of, Firtash, is a Yanukovych administration figure - the same guy that is now living in exile in Southern Russia because he triggered a revolution in the country in 2014. This is one of the pro-Russia forces on the outs in Ukraine standing up for their own.

In summary, Shokin is not a reliable narrator when he says that everything relating to his job in Ukraine was fine until Biden was involved.

This post seems like a relevant response to @Catchall’s recent post of:

Maybe asking for that prosecutor to be removed was a good thing to do. There's some dispute over that. However, Biden threatening to withhold the $1 billion in aid if the prosecutor isn't fired that same day looks very suspicious. Even if that prosecutor wasn't doing his job, why blackmail a country to withhold $1 billion in approved foreign aid over it? That's a strange quid pro quo and is questionable conduct on Biden's part.

Of course, I’m sure @Catchall will ignore this post just as he did the last time kicky wrote this. But I’m hopeful others on this site won’t fall for catch’s deliberate misinformation campaign. Keep posting through it comrade. Eventually everyone will see Biden as slimy as we see Trump.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Check out the stories of Bill Cosby's victims. Dozens to choose from.

Sent from my moto z3 using JazzFanz mobile app

Wtf does that have to with Kavanaugh? Pretty random comment.

 

[infection]

You got any actual crimes by Clinton hidden on that server to back up your sanctimony?

Well that’s a little tough as Trump declassified and released to the public what was on there, whereas Clinton had it scrubbed. And, having classified info there is not lawful. But that’s neither here nor there. Let’s say this same scenario plays out in some alternate universe where Hillary is president. Does that phone call have you seeing that as an obvious crime on her part? Do the players in the game affect how actions are perceived? If Trump had instead been threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine not for investigating a potential political opponent, but instead to fire a prosecutor investigating a company Don Jr. was being paid by, we’d be so laissez faire regarding Trump and beat the crime drum for Clinton?

When the right went after Clinton (or Obama), they threw everything at the wall. It didn’t really matter. There’s plenty I don’t like about either of them, but I prefer my arguments to be informed by bias as little as possible. It’s easy to do by honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the other side and asking how you would view something. That’s why you won’t find a record of me coming on here in a panic about every new Clinton allegation or Obama allegation and thinking whatever ‘crisis’ was at hand that it was pure, unprecedented evil. I never thought Clinton was going to prison because I didn’t have my head up my ***. I certainly don’t trust her and find the whole scenario shady, but I don’t view it as something that was so objectively disqualifying, at least not in terms of the standard we hold these people to. You and I would be ****ed, sure.

Why should we only read between the lines on one side? When Obama told Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility after the election, we needed to view that comment in a vacuum. Wikileaks emails are dismissed because connecting dots and reading between the lines is inappropriate and must be read in a vacuum. Now we’ve got this phone call and we’re told “nah, dawg, you’ve gotta look at it through a different lens, look at a different context, and read between the lines here. If you don’t, you’re stupid.” So is it about the principle, or is it just about the application?

We’d be totally cool if Don Jr. and Eric enriched themselves overseas and Trump withheld funding to get someone fired investigating the company they were paid by? That wouldn’t blow up all media outlets for months? But the media outlets would be absolutely livid at one of Trump’s opponents abusing their privilege by trying to get a foreign power to investigate that? There’d be calls for impeachment?

 

[Harambe]

Wtf does that have to with Kavanaugh? Pretty random comment.

No. It's in context. Both are accused of rape. Is there really that big a disconnect in your mind?

 

[JazzyFresh]

Well that’s a little tough as Trump declassified and released to the public what was on there, whereas Clinton had it scrubbed. And, having classified info there is not lawful. But that’s neither here nor there. Let’s say this same scenario plays out in some alternate universe where Hillary is president. Does that phone call have you seeing that as an obvious crime on her part? Do the players in the game affect how actions are perceived? If Trump had instead been threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine not for investigating a potential political opponent, but instead to fire a prosecutor investigating a company Don Jr. was being paid by, we’d be so laissez faire regarding Trump and beat the crime drum for Clinton?

When the right went after Clinton (or Obama), they threw everything at the wall. It didn’t really matter. There’s plenty I don’t like about either of them, but I prefer my arguments to be informed by bias as little as possible. It’s easy to do by honestly putting yourself in the shoes of the other side and asking how you would view something. That’s why you won’t find a record of me coming on here in a panic about every new Clinton allegation or Obama allegation and thinking whatever ‘crisis’ was at hand that it was pure, unprecedented evil. I never thought Clinton was going to prison because I didn’t have my head up my ***. I certainly don’t trust her and find the whole scenario shady, but I don’t view it as something that was so objectively disqualifying, at least not in terms of the standard we hold these people to. You and I would be ****ed, sure.

Why should we only read between the lines on one side? When Obama told Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility after the election, we needed to view that comment in a vacuum? Why are all of the Wikileaks emails dismissed because connecting dots and reading between the lines is somehow misleading? Now we’ve got this phone call and we’re told “nah, dawg, you’ve gotta look at it through a different lens, look at a different context, and read between the lines here. If you don’t, you’re stupid.” So is it about the principle, or is it just about the application.

We’d be totally cool if Don Jr. and Eric enriched themselves overseas and Trump withheld funding to get someone fired investigating the company they were paid by? That wouldn’t blow up all media outlets for months? But the media outlets would be absolutely livid at one of Trump’s opponents abusing their privilege by trying to get a foreign power to investigate that? There’d be calls for impeachment?

Fantastic post.

Me personally I've been saying the corruption is pretty easily spotted by all parties. It would be absolutely hypocritical and childish of me to get mad at one and look past the other. Am I ok with it? No but to get so bent out of shape over it is worthless.

 

[JazzyFresh]

No. It's in context. Both are accused of rape. Is there really that big a disconnect in your mind?

That had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I asked who Kavanaugh drugged and raped... What in the flying **** does Bill Cosby have to do with that? Nothing, zero, nada

It's nothing more than not a single one of you being able to answer my question and trying to change the conversation. You all are phycological pros at that.

 

[Zombie]

Trump had instead been threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine not for investigating a potential political opponent, but instead to fire a prosecutor investigating a company Don Jr. was being paid by

It's getting really tiring having to point out to active participants in this thread how incorrect this is.

The prosecutor was explicitly not investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for. He was actively resisting its investigation. That's why he was fired. Stop repeating something you all should know by now is not true.

 

[One Brow]

Well that’s a little tough as Trump declassified and released to the public what was on there, whereas Clinton had it scrubbed. And, having classified info there is not lawful. But that’s neither here nor there. Let’s say this same scenario plays out in some alternate universe where Hillary is president. Does that phone call have you seeing that as an obvious crime on her part? Do the players in the game affect how actions are perceived? If Trump had instead been threatening to withhold aid from Ukraine not for investigating a potential political opponent, but instead to fire a prosecutor investigating a company Don Jr. was being paid by, we’d be so laissez faire regarding Trump and beat the crime drum for Clinton?

As an example that actually happened, I supported the notion that Franklin needed to resign. As for hypotheticals, no one really knows how they would respond.

Why should we only read between the lines on one side? When Obama told Medvedev that he’d have more flexibility after the election, we needed to view that comment in a vacuum.

Whereas the left was all to happy to discuss the context of the discussion.

Wikileaks emails are dismissed because connecting dots and reading between the lines is inappropriate and must be read in a vacuum.

What connections to you think are being ignored?

We’d be totally cool if Don Jr. and Eric enriched themselves overseas and Trump withheld funding to get someone fired investigating the company they were paid by?

Depends upon whether there was a connection. Was all of the malfeasance by the company prior to Don and Eric Jr. joining it, and therefore they would not have been in any legal trouble regardless? Is the person being fired well-known for corruption in other matters?

 

[Gameface]

It's getting really tiring having to point out to active participants in this thread how incorrect this is.

The prosecutor was explicitly not investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for. He was actively resisting its investigation. That's why he was fired. Stop repeating something you all should know by now is not true.

And it is worth mentioning that Hunter Biden was never the subject of the investigation. He joined the company AFTER the stuff they were being investigated for happened.

 

[One Brow]

Like what? Care to prove your point? I bet you won't.

Prove my point that you're a partisan loon? Your posts are adequate confirmation.

 

[Harambe]

That had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I asked who Kavanaugh drugged and raped... What in the flying **** does Bill Cosby have to do with that? Nothing, zero, nada

It's nothing more than not a single one of you being able to answer my question and trying to change the conversation. You all are phycological pros at that.

I don't think there's been question of Kavie boy drugging, but raping, yeah. Sure. Few have come forward, Blasely told her psychiatrist long before little k hit the supreme court. Cosby has multiple accusers, and only one instance stuck. And only after documents were unsealed where Cosby admitted to giving women drugs so he could have sex with them, but only on their consent.

 

[JazzyFresh]

Prove my point that you're a partisan loon? Your posts are adequate confirmation.

So no?

Just say **** and not back it up and instead insult. Grow up

 

[One Brow]

Who has come out and said they had their drink spiked? Name one person.

After what happened to Ford, how many people are going to want to acknowledge getting more drunk than they should have 35 years ago, assuming they even remember, assuming they even noticed? Grain alcohol was almost tasteless when in punch, that's why it was used.

You're welcome to believe Kavanaugh was some paragon of virtue if you want. To me, he's just another heavy-drinking frat guy, and I knew plenty of them.

 

[One Brow]

Julie Swetnick said that Kavanaugh routinely participated in gang rapes. She said that she saw Kavanaugh and others outside of bedrooms waiting their turn. She said that she kept going to these gang rape parties and then one time it was her that got gang raped. Yes, I guess that compared to you I am sheltered because I never once considered spiking a woman's drinks for sex and I've never participated in anything that could be remotely interpreted as a gang rape. Doesn't mean I couldn't get accused, though, and if I did I'm sure you'd think I deserve it because I am a man, after all.

I heard about that sort of thing a few times in college, and it would be unlikely that there was nothing else I didn't hear about.

As for whether you would be accused, I have no idea why anyone would accuse you. Do you also worry about someone claiming you're a thief? A murderer? You could get accused of anything? Should we stop believing people who say they were robbed because of your worry you might be falsely accused?

 

[Jonah]

. . .Me personally I've been saying the corruption is pretty easily spotted by all parties. It would be absolutely hypocritical and childish of me to get mad at one and look past the other. Am I ok with it? No but to get so bent out of shape over it is worthless.

I don’t think it’s worthless at all. Influence peddling has corrupted our politics and should be a major topic of debate in the upcoming primaries for Democrats. It would send a great message if this destroyed Biden’s political career. Here’s an excellent article on how pervasive this form of corruption has become:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...-legal-socially-acceptable-corruption/598804/

 

[silesian]

Not by Kavanaugh... Derp...

You asked this question: “Who has come out and said they had their drink spiked? Name one person.”

I really hope you are just pretending to be totally obtuse.

But I have my doubts.

 

[JazzyFresh]

After what happened to Ford, how many people are going to want to acknowledge getting more drunk than they should have 35 years ago, assuming they even remember, assuming they even noticed? Grain alcohol was almost tasteless when in punch, that's why it was used.

You're welcome to believe Kavanaugh was some paragon of virtue if you want. To me, he's just another heavy-drinking frat guy, and I knew plenty of them.

I don't believe anybody. I'm not taking sides here. I have no clue if Kavanaugh raped Ford but I do question how you forget a very traumatic event that had zero witnesses, no place of origin, no rememberence of how she got home, no timeline, and a lawyer who admits that a reason she pursued Kavanaugh was his abortion stance.

Again, I don't know. But what the left has done to a person who has never been found guilty of anything is pretty damn wrong.