Impeachment

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

Loading...
  1. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Your God-Emperor commits campaign finance violation bribery on official record, and you do not bat an eye. Do you seriously expect sane people to cared about the feverish paranoia above? Please.
     
  2. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Yeeeees, voting against the party line is "TREASON!!!!!!1111111oneone". Do you have any idea how batshit this sounds?

    Next time you righties accuse any Dem of being "radical", this is what I'll remember.


    (on the other hand, if Reps see themselves less a political party and more like a crime family, "treason" narrative makes perfect sense. Has nothing to do with "democracy" though).
     
  3. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

  4. copper

    copper Member

    So the Democrats want to impeach Trump before he is sworn into office. Absolutely bat$hit! The last three years has been a treasonous poisonous coup and scam concocted by the Democrats and Romney played right into their hands. BTW, there is battle damage on I-15 billboards all throughout the State of Utah talking about how great Mitt Romney is and all his integrity and so forth. The guy is a snake!

    https://kjzz.com/news/local/we-stand-with-mitt-student-republicans-of-utah-crowdfund-billboard

    https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/2/7/21128106/president-trump-mitt-romney-impeachment-recall-republican-senator
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
    Lerner likes this.
  5. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member



    Indeed President Obama DID drag his feet on providing any military significant help, and the hypocrites in the House didn't care until there was a short delay by the President Trump administration and the whole world started coming down., suddenly Dem's declared national security crisis and all kind of show.
    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. OK so here we are in agreement.
    Vice President Joe Biden did urge Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid. But that was the position of the wider U.S. government, I have no issue here.
    But - "Conflict-of-interest rules should have applied. If Biden is working for the Obama administration on Ukraine, his son should not have been on the board of a company there that could be affected by U.S. policy spearheaded by his father." Even as a private citizen.

    You really believe some of the things you wrote?
    I read the transcript, this is a made up by the left story. One of many.
    There absolutely was no shakedown of President Zelensky by President Trump.

    if President Donald Trump was in White House in 2014 Crimea would be still part of Ukraine.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2020
  6. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    ...and then Trump said "do us a favor, though". Do you realize that what Democrats want or do not want has NO bearing on whether Sen. Romney made the right decision? It does not factor into Constitutional criteria for impeachment and removal.

    Sure, sure, a person who disagrees with you is a "snake". It is nice how you are willing to dehumanize fellow Americans so openly; hierophant is not so direct. Really helps to see which side is radical, or "batshit".
     
  7. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    Appearance of a conflict, sure. Hunter shouldn't have worked there. But - conflict always relate to specific decisions an official makes; there is no indication Joe was affected by Hunter's employment in any way. Theoretically, a VP can affect literally any area of US policy, so anywhere Hunter would have worked would pose a potential conflict - or would it? And of course, funny how none of this applies to Jr., Eric, Ivanka and Jared.

    Funny how you can see the conflict for Joe, yet completely ignore "do us a favor though". How about Crowdstrike, a complete Saushkino-made nonsense that happen to be convenient for Putin and Trump? Come on here.
    Trump tried to shake down Zelensky. Also, he successfully got Poroshenko to go easy on Manafort by dangling the first Javelin shipment and a brief meeting. This is clear as day.

    If Trump was in the White House in 2014, Yanukovich would probably still live in Mizhyhirya. Crimea might have been part of Ukraine - on Kremlin's terms. Be real.
     
  8. copper

    copper Member

    Your dialogue has digressed to flamebait and I'm not taking the hook. Have a nice day!
     
  9. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    :D Bye now.
     
  10. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No. He did it because the White House blocked witnesses and evidence from the House, so they had to go with what they had--which was compelling evidence of the President's guilt on its own. The House was very specific about which witnesses and evidence it wanted, but the articles of impeachment introduced by the House were well-supported as is.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It is very accurate, though incomplete. And it is compelling evidence that the president committed multiple felonies.
     
    Stanislav likes this.
  12. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Irrelevant. Democrats didn't hold the majority in the House--and, thus, the power to impeach--until 2 years into his term.

    Inaccurate. The Speaker of the House held off impeaching him after the Mueller Report, even though it was chock full of impeachable offenses. This is prima facie evidence that your assertion is wrong.

    Irrelevant (again). Democrats' motives have nothing to do with whether or not the president committed crimes. Even if they had some desire to oust him, it would not be exculpatory. He either did or did not do what he was accused of doing. (Hint: he did.)
     
    Stanislav likes this.
  13. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    Democrats gradually tested the waters, initially, they knew that real impeachment is a cross-partisan vote to have both parties to provide votes.
    So as long as they thought they can't get votes across the both parties they avoided the impeachment. They really hoped the establishment will turn on President Trump and
    that the bogus Russian Collusion, with bogus Dossie and FISA and huge scope creep, all will provide the ammunition to remove the president.
    Well, that fiasco while miserably failed to oust the President it did help the Dems to gain the majority in the house so in that aspect the media and Dems profited from the bogus campaign.
    Being used to be able to have the media to do the dirty work they were fuming that this time it didn't achieve the goal. (They are still) Maybe the Madam Speaker waited for that "evidence" that Rep AS promised but never delivered.
    Democrat motives are to find anything, to look everywhere by all means as they wanted the public to believe that Russians stole the elections. The defeat in 2016 was a perfect storm.

    Dems didn't have some desire, they had a complete and full desire to unseat the President.
    The so-called chock of impeachable offenses was all fake news and nothing more.
    If they had anything they would have used it in the articles of impeachment have no doubt about it.

    The so-called whistleblower actually is not qualified as such under the regulations. As everybody in the Senate knew exactly what was happening, the ex Obama "operatives" as part of what is stated above - searching for any opportunity just used another excuse to attack the president. Well, they got the nation watching Dem's propaganda going into an election year. Too bad, the Senate allowed the fake impeachment to actually play itself.
    It was bogus as bogus can be.
     
  14. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    I personally don't see any evidence especially compelling that any offenses were committed.
    If anything I hear the opposite.
     
  15. Lerner

    Lerner Well-Known Member

    It was stated earlier by Kevin McCarthy that this is exactly something that Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers if you look at the Federalist Papers and some of the early back and forth writing on elements of the Constitution, if you look at the things written about impeachment, one of the great fears that Alexander Hamilton had was that it would become something fully unintended. That it would become a purely political exercise that would be used by a single party in dominant power in the House, that they would use impeachment as nothing more than a political or campaign tool.
    That’s exactly what is happening here.
     
  16. copper

    copper Member

    News Flash
    President Trump acquitted!
     
  17. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Yes, he was. That doesn't mean he is innocent or didn't do what he was accused of (as many Republican Senators have acknowledged).
     
  18. copper

    copper Member

    "Irrelevant" Acquitted! The only thing that matters is the people's vote this November but I appreciate your insights and civility.
     
  19. Stanislav

    Stanislav Well-Known Member

    So is OJ. They even share a lawyer.
     
  20. copper

    copper Member

    I'm impressed, you cracked the code! I'm sure there will be civil lawsuits as well. "Irrelevant"! Trump ACQUITTED!
     

Share This Page