Impeachment

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Dec 10, 2019.

Loading...
  1. copper

    copper Member

    My prediction of a bi-partisan acquittal did not come to pass. I obviously don't have the same "revelatory powers" as Mitt. I actually feel sorry for the guy. He now lives in a world with no true friends.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  2. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    If voting your conscience causes you to lose friends then they weren't your friends in the first place. I feel sorry for the Republican Senators who will go down in history as spineless toadies.
     
  3. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Active Member

    Utah has never been super good for President Trump.
    https://kutv.com/news/local/for-the-first-time-a-majority-of-utah-voters-approve-of-president-donald-trump

    Romney took a hit for sure but he is still popular and respected in Utah.

    Mitt Romney Is a ‘Judas’ to Many Republicans. But Not in Utah.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/10/us/politics/mitt-romney-trump-utah.html
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  4. Vonnegut

    Vonnegut Active Member

    I genuinely respect Mitt, well... except when he declares that he is self-made. Really wish more Republicans maintained the integrity and pragmatism that he has demonstrated throughout his political career. Also wish more Democrats maintained the same.
     
  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    The transcript of the call shows that there was nothing impeachable in that call. The issue at hand is that its manufactured inflated impeachment highly political and partisan.
    For now, it's over. Let's see what will be the next attack on the president.
    3 years of constant investigations and attacks and the left media is a major operative of the left.

    Ukranian call with president Zelinsky was abused by the left.
     
    heirophant likes this.
  6. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    The transcript of the call shows that there was nothing impeachable in that call. The issue at hand is that its manufactured inflated impeachment highly political and partisan.
    For now, it's over. Let's see what will be the next attack on the president.
    3 years of constant investigations and attacks and the left media is a major operative of the left.

    Ukranian call with president Zelinsky was abused by the left.
     
  7. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    From the call:

    1. The ask was illegal (campaign finance violation). It was also an abuse of his office.
    2. The withhold was illegal (according to the GAO).
    3. Put them together and you have either bribery or extortion. Your choice.
    4. Enlisting others into the scheme made it a criminal conspiracy.

    Now, that's just from the call. We also have all of the obstruction and lying he did associated with it all.

    It also doesn't include the 10 instances of obstruction of justice detailed in the Mueller report, as well as the more than 100 contacts with Russians about the stolen DNC information.

    It also doesn't include committing other crimes, including the conspiracy he ran regarding Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal. Then there are still matters under investigation, like emoluments clause violations, self-dealing at Mar-a-Lago, Prestwick, and elsewhere, and the illegal aliens his company hired for years. Finally, it does not include other things he's suspected of--but is fighting in court to block--such as access to his tax records and finances by Congress and New York attorneys. Oh, and before I forget, the more than two dozen lawsuits and accusations of sexual assault, harassment, and rape. I'm sure he's completely innocent in all of that because, you know, his record was so perfect up until all of this.

    It also doesn't include his blatant and likely illegal retaliation against people who've testified before Congress. (Yes, he has the right to remove them, but it's not an unfettered right. It's a crime to do it for illegal purposes. Retaliating against whistleblowers and people who testify lawfully is illegal.)

    No president in history has had this many staffers and associates convicted of felonies so soon in his presidential term. But again, it's not his fault, right?

    I'm not saying he should or should not have been removed from office for what he did. But please stop denying what everyone already knows.
     
  8. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    With all the respect I don't think it's the case.

    1. The ask was illegal (campaign finance violation). It was also an abuse of his office. - Left allegation and distortion, the ask is related to corruption and $$$$$$$$$$ salary of an inexperienced employee who happens to be a son of the US VP and access to US VP by some corrupted company.
    based on the signed agreements with Ukraine. And VP who threatened to have someone fired? This is investigated by DOJ.

    2. The withhold was illegal (according to the GAO). There was a short delay, in comparison of years of no real help to Ukrain by the left. Ahh yes, blankets.
    3. Put them together and you have either bribery or extortion. Your choice. Not really this is what Dem's want many to believe but it's based on the invention of things that didn't happen.
    4. Enlisting others into the scheme made it a criminal conspiracy. - Indeed Dem's Congress members and Senators all did that in this fake impeachment.

    Many would argue:
    Just like the Russian collusion, fake FISA, and fake dossier paid by Dems, and wasted time and resources, reports investigations, etc,
    It's all inflated and conspired by the establishment.

    I don't think the leaker is a whistleblower, by definition he is not. Sounds too many more like a conspirator. As to the Colonel, He will continue to serve our country. I personally think his feelings about foreign policy and airing them puts him in a problematic spot. Possibly crossed the line when allowed to get used by Dem's congressman. Some take it further to the level of conspiracy against the Chief. I think he will be transferred to duty for better utilization.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
    heirophant likes this.
  9. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I'm far from an expert on these issues. Colonel Alexander Vindman can advise the President on National Security matters. Some point to maybe a reacquaintance with the Constitution which says that foreign policy decisions are the President's and Trump is his Commander in Chief ought to be underlined for his attention. I think respectfully if he had concerns than President Trump's conversation should have been brought to his immediate superior's attention and not some democrat congressman looking to impeach Trump. This is where he crossed the line. I can be wrong.
     
    heirophant likes this.
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    I'm not arguing this. I'll just let my post stand.
     
    SteveFoerster likes this.
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You are. He did. Go look at his testimony.
     
  12. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I watched his testimony. I remember the part of him calling the superior, I meant to say that where it should have stopped - call to the superior, and not to be used by Dem's congressman with one goal to remove the president from his office.
    I'm also ex-soviet and I didn't interpret the call the way he did. But who am I? The guy is a decorated officer and serves our country. For that I'm thankful.
    But Democrat counsel seemed to be under the impression that unelected bureaucrats set U.S. policy, not the president.
    Col Vindman admitted that the president, not unelected bureaucrats, sets U.S. policy
    Col Vindman admitted having no firsthand knowledge of aid or an investigation and was just “following news accounts”
    Col Vindman admitted that president Trump was “well within his rights” to ask Ukraine for help in an investigation.
    Which pretty much negates the entire need for this impeachment inquiry, doesn't it? If President Trump was within his rights to seek assistance in an investigation, then he did nothing wrong.
    Col Vindman admitted that putting the transcript of the Ukraine call on a secure server was “definitely not unprecedented”
    Col Vindman admitted the Trump-Zelenksy transcript was “very accurate”
    Col Vindman admitted he has never used the term “bribery” to describe the president’s actions
    Col Vindman said he couldn’t recall Ukrainians feeling pressured to do investigations
    Col Vindman said, "As far as I can tell," Hunter Biden was not qualified to serve on Burisma’s board
    Col Vindman said there was an appearance of a conflict of interest with Hunter Biden being on the Burisma board



     
    heirophant likes this.
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Congratulations. You've created an entirely new reality and solved the dilemma. As another of our colleagues would say, "How Conveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeenient!" Again, I'll let my original post stand. It's not worth arguing over.
     
  14. copper

    copper Member

    It's about voting on the facts reviewed not your gut feeling or conscience. Mitt Romney voted in favor of calling witnesses to the Senate because the House did a poor job. He admitted he couldn't sleep at night. He said, "do what is right, let the consequences come" yet he votes to convict the President on an admitted lack of evidence. If I were a Juror and I struggled as much as he did with his "conscience", I would vote innocent by the mere fact that I need to sleep well at night!
     
  15. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member













    BTW I wrote Col, I should have written Lt.Col.
    Watch a Democrat/media conspiracy theory get totally destroyed by two of Adam Schiff's own witnesses.

    Jennifer Williams says the call transcript is "substantively correct," and Alexander Vindman said it is "very accurate."
    And also other testimony to support the post.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/ten-reasons-vindmans-testimony-was-bad-for-democrats/
     
  16. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    I thought that a handful of Dems would defect. Joe Manchin for instance. He's going to have a hard time getting reelected.

    If he wants me to believe that he acted out of principle, he needs to explain what those principles were and exactly what violated them. Just saying that religion is important to him tells me nothing. I think that it's pretty clear that he just doesn't like Trump, so it looks more like personality than principle to me.

    I don't feel sorry for him. He's a rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He's a US Senator and will be for several more years until reelection time comes. There's a patrician arrogance written all over the guy.

    He's certainly isolated himself. Of course there's a tiny crew of never-Trump (alleged) Republicans, mostly in DC, that he can hang around and feel superior with. Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin and that crowd. Except that if you gathered all of them together, they wouldn't total a crowd and certainly don't represent any large group of voters. But they have columns in Democrat-mouthpiece newspapers (those papers' token "Republican"), they run little ostensibly "intellectual" money-losing magazines that nobody reads, and they infest lobbyist offices lobbying for globalist big business against the interests of the US and the American people. Mitt's people!

    He's rich and famous, he'll always have friends. True friends, maybe not so much.
     
    copper likes this.
  17. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    It's not mysterious, or all that complicated. Romney voted to remove the President, because the President engaged in impeachable conduct. Romney explained it well enough; what he didn't do is overcome advanced doublethink skills more informed Trump apologists employ. I think he's fine with that.
     
    Rich Douglas likes this.
  18. copper

    copper Member

    I hate to re-tell this story of 30 years ago but during military training exercises, I was captured and forced to reveal stuff about my company. I betrayed them and it took a long time to regain their trust. I vowed to myself from that day forward I would never go through the hell of feeling like a traitor again. The enemy would have to kill me and that would be better than the overwhelming regret of screwing your buddies! I am grateful for that experience!
     
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Man, you can't be from the country and still be this poorly informed.
    Biden didn't get "someone" fired. He put a pressure on Porokh to fire Viktor Shokin. Which was a "good thing, not a bad thing"; Viktor Shokin is a first-rate professional in covering up corruption. That was his whole expertise. Firing that guy to help out a corrupt company is, exactly, backwards. You really need to be a naïve American to take anything either Shokin or that drunk Lutsenko says seriously.
    US provided a lot of help to Ukraine, starting at the veeeery beginning; ask Victoria "F*ck the EU" Nuland. Obama DID drag his feet on providing LETHAL aid, and was rightly criticized for that. This is in no way, shape, or form the same as "no real help".
    And oh, btw, among the more important help US provided was twisting Ukrainian's arm into making progress on anti-corruption effort. A lot of this was done by Ambassador Ivanovich; Trump fired her for that (on behalf of Rudy's shady associates and clients in Ukraine). BTW Biden's efforts were along the same lines. Instead of helping Ukraine shake it's corruption problem US now contributes to it. I'd say this is more important than selling Javelins Ukrainian military is not allowed to use on frontlines.

    Trump's shakedown of Zelensky is absolutely transparent, and shameful. It basically robbed Ukraine of it's bipartisan support in US. You really stand for this?


    PS. Hunter Biden totally was qualified for that position on Burisma board. These types of positions do not require any qualifications, other than being a somewhat-prominent Western person. Everyone else on that board (including former President of Poland) were along the same lines. And this is a problem, but not exclusively or primarily Biden's. Let me make it clearer: Donald Trump was paid $250,000 to give a 20-minute speech, over Skype, at Pinchuk's economic forum in Yalta. Bill Clinton was paid half a mil, but he had to show up in person. This is all PR.
     
  20. heirophant

    heirophant Well-Known Member

    Vindman's opening remarks included this:

    "In the Spring of 2019, I became aware of outside influencers promoting a false narrative of Ukraine inconsistent with the consensus views of the interagency" .

    It appears to me that in Vindman's mind, and seemingly in the minds of many government officials (this isn't the first time the idea has arisen), an imaginary something called "the interagency" actually exists, despite it not appearing on any federal organizational chart or anywhere in the United States Constitution. Apparently "the interagency" refers to the consensus policy views of bureaucrats in government agencies, If a new President from a different political party attempts to change policy in some way the lower-level bureaucrats don't like, the "civil servants" turn into a self-styled "resistance" and do whatever they can to subvert the new policy. That comes dangerously close to sedition.

    If President Trump accomplishes anything, it has to be "Draining the Swamp". The future of American democracy (and with it the fate of the Western World) depends on it. Otherwise the US effectively becomes a one-party state pretending to be a democracy, not unlike Putin's Russia. A state where elections mean little or nothing and real power is exercised by a faceless and permanent "Deep State" nomenklatura.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020

Share This Page