What's new

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

I found the specific argument I was talking about when we began this discussion. It begins at the 35 minute mark but the core of it goes from about 37:30 to about 42:15. I would be very interested in hearing your (and other people's) reactions to it.

In terms of the three conditions:
1) Obama was asking Russia to be patient, but was not asking for any specific action. Trump asked for an announcement to hurt a political opponent. Asking for something specific is clearly worse than asking for nothing.
2) No other US citizen was impacted by Obama's request. Trump was specifically targeting a US citizen.
3) I have seen no case made that the agreement we came to with Russia would have been any different before or after the election, so there is no basis to claim that US interests were threatened. Had Trump's withholding of funds not been called out, Ukraine would be in a much more precarious position today.

So, a false equivalence on all three points.
 
I'm loving the argument that "We do quid pro quo all the time in diplomacy."

It's like they think "quid pro quo" is the base of the accusation, like simply the act of asking for something in exchange for something else, as if that is what we're saying was wrong.

No!

A President asking for a quid pro quo, on one side holding up foreign aid that wasn't his to withould in exchange for a personal favor and one that was specifically meant to hurt his political rival, that's the issue.

It is about a president using things that aren't his but are intended to help an ally defend themselves against an aggressive threat in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a front-running Presidential candidate.

It's so weird people don't just see that for what it is.
 
I'm loving the argument that "We do quid pro quo all the time in diplomacy."

It's like they think "quid pro quo" is the base of the accusation, like simply the act of asking for something in exchange for something else, as if that is what we're saying was wrong.

No!

A President asking for a quid pro quo, on one side holding up foreign aid that wasn't his to withould in exchange for a personal favor and one that was specifically meant to hurt his political rival, that's the issue.

It is about a president using things that aren't his but are intended to help an ally defend themselves against an aggressive threat in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a front-running Presidential candidate.

It's so weird people don't just see that for what it is.

Trump was running two foreign policies. The official one, was publicly known and based on Congressional arrangements to aid Ukraine. Another in the shadow, based on helping Donald Trump’s election by using Congressionally passed foreign aid as leverage against Ukraine.

The “we do quid pro quo all the time” argument is just silly. Again, why have a Congress if the president can decide in shadow who gets aid and when? And I agree, it’s weird how many people don’t understand this.
 
Last edited:
Don't worry. Once a Democrat is the President, every single Republican will be braying about the importance of Congress.
 
Don't worry. Once a Democrat is the President, every single Republican will be braying about the importance of Congress.

mans the deficit. We all know that if a Democrat wins this November, that next January the Tea Party fiscal Hawks will come back demanding huge cuts to Medicare and social security.
 
I realized why I had him blocked. Like he’s done with Kicky, he asks questions, gets answers he doesn’t like, and then whines about no one answering his questions. I’ve stated before that I watch Hannity. Never have I denied it. But he’ll keep arguing otherwise because he isn’t a rational person.
Well one thing I do know is that he is incorrect about me watching Hannity. (I also know that despite the fact that he claims I'm blocked he seems to read all of my messages.) It's cute the various ways he finds to respond, and it's interesting that he does not choose to respond to questions I ask like the one about Trump's attorney who applied the House Manager's arguments to Obama.
 
I think it's true that Obama had more flexibility after the election, as a second-term President. I think all second-term Presidents have more flexibility, especially in foreign affairs. Do you think that's not true? Do you have any reason to attach some nefarious meaning to that? That's why everyone else tok your comment so poorly, because you were making such a clearly inapt comparison.

Why is this relevant to Trump using taxpayer dollars for his personal gain? Perhaps you could name a time Obama did that?

Really.

Repeating the same lie thousands of times, inundating the public with media lies, is not progressive, in the real original meaning of the word, from it's Latin roots meaning forward movement. Perhaps you are not interested in looking closely at your sources or the facts.

I think Mark Levin found a pretty good bit today, relative to (in my opinion, CFR MIC pro-American dominance foreign policy advocate) John Bolton's "leaked" Book claims, a sound (and I think) TV clip where in an interview circa late August, a month after the Ukraine call and about three weeks before his resignation/ouster rumored over Trump's not going to war with Turkey, or maybe some Korean issues..... or over withdrawals of troops from some damn hell hole or another...….

Bolton was in total assurance that the Ukraine calls were wonderful, excellent things entirely appropriate to the subject, on all three major impeachment issues.

OB, when "your" media sources just absolute refused to tell the truth or report objective facts, and/or your political cause needs to dodge them, that's a clear signal to check your bearings.

Kennedy's 1984 assurances to Putin were part of his actual invitation to the Kremlin to help set up circumstances that would impair Reagan's campaign and/or re-election efforts, exactly what Hillary and dthe DNC, and some ******* chiefs of the FBI, CIA, DOJ and the FISA court did against Trump in 2016, It is pretty clear that Obama, in setting up his post-Presidency palace, was intended to facilitate his management of his confederates in the bureaucracy and Congress----and indeed, in the White House staff as well---- after purportedly turning the office of the Presidency over to Trump.

When I find another reason for the organized efforts of the Resistance, I'll let you know, but I am not going to give evidence if I have it. I give it to you as a signal. Is this Schiff's Show? I keep seeing long-playing dramas with the same goal of indoctrinating/ inundating the public, with Resistance propaganda.

Obama clearly coordinated his campaigns with Kremlin support. Birds of a feather, bro. That is what globalism is all about.
 
This is inexcusable.

How isn’t this date well known? If it isn’t a matter of public record, doesnt that raise eyebrows that something shady is going on? Shouldn’t we have some witnesses who could shed some light on this? Why wouldn’t Senate republicans want to know which date Donald specifically held up the aid?
 
Maybe I am; maybe I do. It was just a joke, and my tiny pea brain was only processing the fairly public threats made by Trump & Senate Trumpians to their own colleagues, who-- whether you like them or loathe them for it as a Republican voter-- are just trying to remain objective and honest with themselves, as near as I can tell. <shrug>

Pretty cool-headed reply.

There's a recent poll out now that indicates Romney couldn't be elected dog-catcher in rural Utah. Well, maybe I exaggerate.....

but if you look for it, I had some human in my post above, as well as your own.

The ideas that Trump had any concern about the coming election in his suggestion that Ukraine should check into possible, media-published, reports of it are simply ridiculous. Biden can't tie his own shoes, and he is senile without his management team coaching, and he still makes tons of idiot stupid remarks despite all his team support folks can do. I think Trump would do to Biden what he did to Hillary. There is such a crush of American sentiments against the failed pseudo-royal Clinton/Bush and Swamp, you'd need 10 million fake votes to elect Biden. Maybe 20. He represents a failed past Americans increasingly resent, increasingly reject, and will not stand for under any terms.

Trump has levelly been asserting that the organized Resistance that has tried to sack him should not be tolerated. No President should ever be subjected to such tactics. WE have to keep the federal agencies politically neutral what ever it takes.

It is his sworn duty to enforce US federal law, and to encourage investigation of criminal actions by federal officers. He's only doing his job.

He does not get full support from the DOJ, the FBI, etc because of entrench CYA on the bureaucratic backsides and I dare say heads. Having "leakers" and various EB officials turn out to complain he's not doing things their way is proof of the effort to capture the Executive Branch of power in "safe" hands, rather than the American Voters.
 
This is inexcusable.

How isn’t this date well known? If it isn’t a matter of public record, doesnt that raise eyebrows that something shady is going on? Shouldn’t we have some witnesses who could shed some light on this? Why wouldn’t Senate republicans want to know which date Donald specifically held up the aid?


In legal speech, it's common to refer to the contents of the pleadings and whatever court filings or court evidence at hand, not to just go to the public media reports. So Philbin is saying the House failed to establish the date, that is all.
 
Repeating the same lie thousands of times, inundating the public with media lies, is not progressive, in the real original meaning of the word, from it's Latin roots meaning forward movement.

I agree.
1) Nothing in my post said anything about Obama lying or not lying. He lied a lot, perhaps slightly less that average for a President.
2) Since Obama was not a progressive, I don't know why you bothered to rant about it.
 
This is incredible.





who here supports this? Is repubs want to set this precedent, what becomes of our democracy? Can President Warren threaten nuclear war with China unless they smear her opponent? Can president Sanders Derain all white Repubs in key swing states from voting? Can president Biden offer people money and favors for votes?

I liked this reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red
Top