Extra Extra Read All About It - It's Official: Trump has been IMPEACHED

[Kutnupe14]

About that eagle-eyed ability to parse America's interests, how has it performed with other candidates? Recall this was about placement of missile defenses in Europe



I'm having trouble seeing how the interests of America were being served and not his desire to be re-elected. I would be willing to consider that he might have been motivated by the realization that Russia is a player on the world stage and it is better to work with them when we can, were you to drop the TDS and allow the same consideration for Trump. Barring (or Barrying) that, seems like treason to me

I remember the Obama "more flexibility" comment, and how the right lost their collective minds over it. Now, one can certainly criticize Obama over the comment, as it implies that he can't be upfront with his plans, with the American people, because it could be politically damaging to his re-election campaign. But that is how politics works, and has always worked. The issue with the comparison you're trying to make, is the lack of specifics. There is no implicit threat, nor indication of doing something that is potentially wrong. Conversely, Trump makes it appear that his support for the Ukraine via arms sales is contingent on the Ukraine investigating Biden, a political rival. Whereas Obama is promising "flexibility," Trump was promising "arms." One intangible, and completely open to interpretation and diplomacy, the other not.

 

[bwframe]

It's good that the libs are clutching on to this foolish impeachment thing. We won't have to work that hard or worry about victory in 2020.

Maybe we take this time to better educate our pres on the 2A? He may not be perfectly acceptable in his current 2A thinking, but he has shown that he'll listen to advisers that he trusts.

We don't have any choice but Trump for the 2A and the appointment of the judges that will back it up.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's good that the libs are clutching on to this foolish impeachment thing. We won't have to work that hard or worry about victory in 2020.

Maybe we take this time to better educate our pres on the 2A? He may not be perfectly acceptable in his current 2A thinking, but he has shown that he'll listen to advisers that he trusts.

We don't have any choice but Trump for the 2A and the appointment of the judges that will back it up.

Please take that to heart.

 

[Brad69]

The Democrats need to be considering this may be a set up!

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/mcconnell-says-if-house-impeaches-trump-senate-must-have-trial

Mitch has stated as well as many others a trial will happen.

This trial has no limits none !

I bet $100 that Joe Biden “the joke” and his son Hunter the “worthless” will be called to testify. Don’t be surprised if Hillary and many more are called on to testify. If anyone thinks the Republicans would let a opportunity to dive into a trial that’s no holds barred your nuts.
This has a potential to take down many people this is a situation where when called a person would have to appear in days not weeks and be questioned.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ns-would-make-rules-senate-impeachment-trial/

This possibly might be a King of Thrones move?


BTW

Nobody is talking about the Democratic primary candidates Biden is losing support fast.
Warren has many powerful Democratic donors stating they will not donate to her.
Hillary has reappeared?

 

[bwframe]

Please take that to heart.

As should you, my friend.

 

[KG1]

I remember the Obama "more flexibility" comment, and how the right lost their collective minds over it. Now, one can certainly criticize Obama over the comment, as it implies that he can't be upfront with his plans, with the American people, because it could be politically damaging to his re-election campaign. But that is how politics works, and has always worked. The issue with the comparison you're trying to make, is the lack of specifics. There is no implicit threat, nor indication of doing something that is potentially wrong. Conversely, Trump makes it appear that his support for the Ukraine via arms sales is contingent on the Ukraine investigating Biden, a political rival. Whereas Obama is promising "flexibility," Trump was promising "arms." One intangible, and completely open to interpretation and diplomacy, the other not.

Once again I will have to disagree that there was an implicit threat by Trump to withold arms in exchange for cooperation in the investigation of a political rival. You yourself just said that "Conversely, Trump makes it APPEAR that his support is contingent" That is open to YOUR interpretation and there is absolutely no evidence in the transcript that the Ukrainian leader took it as such. He even stated that he did not feel pressured in any way after all this came to light. It was even reported that the Ukrainians were not even aware that Trump had put a hold on the funding prior to the phone conversation.

Another point that I've continually brought up is that the part of the transcript that you keep implying that Trump is making this "threat" where he says that "he would like a favor though" relates to a request for their cooperation with investigating interference in the 2016 elections with the whole Hillary email scandal and the subsequent origins of the Mueller investigation which so happens to be the focus of a current ongoing investigation being conducted by AG Barr and the DOJ.

The Biden thing had no connection to that and was a seperate side note brought up later in the conversation.

 

[jamil]

-Ok that IS illegal. There was no culpability. Bill Clinton/Intern - he was Impeached.
-A president can be impeached absence violation of law. Corrupt intent is enough (IMO).
-If Biden broke the law, he should be held accountable. However, Biden doesn't appear, at least according to the Ukrainians to have broken the law. There were not one but TWO investigations concerning the Biden's and the Ukraine - from TWO different prosecutors. The case had been settled. Is that case supposed to be relitigated until it produces the WH's desired results?
-You mention illegal leaks coming from Democrats. If the leaks are illegal, and the Trump DoJ is in power, why havent those persons been prosecuted? And which leaks are we talking about? Most of the leaks I've seen, aside being party neutral, the WH have been called "fake news." Well, if the information isn't accurate, is it actually an illegal leak?

Clinton wasn’t impeached for his fling with Monica. He was impeached for perjury. Sex in the oval office isn’t illegal. That alone was not grounds for being impeached.

It’s true that congress can impeach the president for pretty much any reason. They just need enough votes in the House to file articles of impeachment, and they need enough votes in the senate to convict. But there’s a potentially high political cost for that, if public opinion is against impeachment. The threat of mutually assured destruction has up until now, held congress back from partisan impeachment hits based on “I don’t like him”.

And you’re entitled to your opinion that Trump is dangerous. There are people who have opinions all across the spectrum, including those who think he’s a messiah of sorts. That’s why we have elections. You get one vote to represent your whims. Yet you want Congress to take other people’s vote away from them to remove the possibility that their opinion could outnumber yours. That’s immoral and shameful.

Yes, congress doesn’t need a real ass crime to impeach. But impeaching a president on weak ass **** like this, is more dangerous than Trump. I want a congress afraid of mutually assured destruction so they don’t pull partisan **** like this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Once again I will have to disagree that there was an implicit threat by Trump to withold arms in exchange for cooperation in the investigation of a political rival. You yourself just said that "Conversely, Trump makes it APPEAR that his support is contingent" That is open to YOUR interpretation and there is absolutely no evidence in the transcript that the Ukrainian leader took it as such. He even stated that he did not feel pressured in any way after all this came to light. It was even reported that the Ukrainians were not even aware that Trump had put a hold on the funding prior to the phone conversation.

Another point that I've continually brought up is that the part of the transcript that you keep implying that Trump is making this "threat" where he says that "he would like a favor though" relates to a request for their cooperation with investigating interference in the 2016 elections with the whole Hillary email scandal and the subsequent origins of the Mueller investigation which so happens to be the focus of a current ongoing investigation being conducted by AG Barr and the DOJ.

The Biden thing had no connection to that and was a seperate side note brought up later in the conversation.

That doesn't really make a difference. We only have to believe that Trump was sincere in saying it, and if subsequent actions confirm that sincerity. If I say I'm going to buy a gun to kill someone, you can dismiss it. If I then buy a gun 5 minutes later, you belief made no difference in the sincerity of my initial statement.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Clinton wasn’t impeached for his fling with Monica. He was impeached for perjury. Sex in the oval office isn’t illegal. That alone was not grounds for being impeached.

It’s true that congress can impeach the president for pretty much any reason. They just need enough votes in the House to file articles of impeachment, and they need enough votes in the senate to convict. But there’s a potentially high political cost for that, if public opinion is against impeachment. The threat of mutually assured destruction has up until now, held congress back from partisan impeachment hits based on “I don’t like him”.

And you’re entitled to your opinion that Trump is dangerous. There are people who have opinions all across the spectrum, including those who think he’s a messiah of sorts. That’s why we have elections. You get one vote to represent your whims. Yet you want Congress to take other people’s vote away from them to remove the possibility that their opinion could outnumber yours. That’s immoral and shameful.

Yes, congress doesn’t need a real ass crime to impeach. But impeaching a president on weak ass **** like this, is more dangerous than Trump. I want a congress afraid of mutually assured destruction so they don’t pull partisan **** like this.

I'm clear on that. I was just taking the posters examples so he could follow along as I addressed them.
I also agree that there's potentially a high cost for attempting impeachment that the public doesn't support. (Speaking Neutrally) honestly, that shouldn't matter, if there's a genuine belief the president committed serious impeachable offenses. If one believes such, and yet takes into consideration the political cost if they attempt the act, they value being a politician more than they do the welfare of the nation.

It is my opinion that Trump is dangerous. He should be impeached. Not for being dangerous, but for committing dangerous actions in which impeachment could be pursued. The founders placed the mechanism in the Constitution exactly for the removal of incompetent and dangerous executives. Their nothing immoral nor shameful, in asking congress to use the mechanisms the founding Fathers provided us to rid ourselves of such executive... unless you think the Founding Fathers were immoral and shameful when they added that mechanism in the Constitution. "The People" voted to have their representatives speak for them. If Trump is impeached, he is done so "by the people," via the representatives they choose to give their voice.

 

[KG1]

That doesn't really make a difference. We only have to believe that Trump was sincere in saying it, and if subsequent actions confirm that sincerity. If I say I'm going to buy a gun to kill someone, you can dismiss it. If I then buy a gun 5 minutes later, you belief made no difference in the sincerity of my initial statement.

You can believe what you want. I’m just not buying into your attempted “shakedown” theory. Trump was speaking in the context of mutual cooperation.

We’ve already done a lot for you and I would like your help with a matter currently under investigation of which Ukraine had potential involvement in.

I don’t see a problem with that.

 

[jamil]

I'm clear on that. I was just taking the posters examples so he could follow along as I addressed them.
I also agree that there's potentially a high cost for attempting impeachment that the public doesn't support. (Speaking Neutrally) honestly, that shouldn't matter, if there's a genuine belief the president committed serious impeachable offenses. If one believes such, and yet takes into consideration the political cost if they attempt the act, they value being a politician more than they do the welfare of the nation.

It is my opinion that Trump is dangerous. He should be impeached. Not for being dangerous, but for committing dangerous actions in which impeachment could be pursued. The founders placed the mechanism in the Constitution exactly for the removal of incompetent and dangerous executives. Their nothing immoral nor shameful, in asking congress to use the mechanisms the founding Fathers provided us to rid ourselves of such executive... unless you think the Founding Fathers were immoral and shameful when they added that mechanism in the Constitution. "The People" voted to have their representatives speak for them. If Trump is impeached, he is done so "by the people," via the representatives they choose to give their voice.

It does matter. This belief is completely, totally, partisan. Such decisions should be up to voters. Why do you hate democracy?

 

[jamil]

That doesn't really make a difference. We only have to believe that Trump was sincere in saying it, and if subsequent actions confirm that sincerity. If I say I'm going to buy a gun to kill someone, you can dismiss it. If I then buy a gun 5 minutes later, you belief made no difference in the sincerity of my initial statement.

We? Who the **** is we? “WE” don’t even come close to agreeing on the rorschach test known as the transcript.

 

[2A_Tom]

It does matter. This belief is completely, totally, partisan. Such decisions should be up to voters. Why do you hate democracy?

It is a Republic.

 

[KG1]

I’ve got alittle free time to kill so I’m gonna post about my thoughts on Guliani for abit because of his involvement.

Right now I’m no big fan. I think he’s a blowhard that has his own personal agenda that he’s been trying to push concerning Biden and he’s a bad influence surrounding Trump.

i thought Guliani did good things as the mayor of NYC but I don’t hold that same opinion of him at the present time. I think he’s mucking up the works and isn’t very helpful.

I think this whole Biden thing has been pushed by Guliani who is wearing his old DA hat and he believes, as do a number of other people I might add that VP Biden got away with corrupt acts and abused his position as VP while he was delegated by Obama to oversee Ukrainian-US relations.and he’s been trying to draw renewed attention to it.

I think Trump made the request of the Ukrainian leader to consider taking another look at the Biden controversy to placate Guliani’s dogged insistence that VP Biden was still guilty of committing corrupt acts of which I’m sure that he’s been chewing on Trumps ear about. So much so that he considers himself to be a “whistleblower” of sorts trying to expose the corruption of the previous administration.

Now Guliaini is making the claim that he was asked by State Dept. officials to speak with Ukrainian officials and they knew what he was doing and he has text messages conversations to prove it.

This has been ongoing for sometime and it’s nothing new to suggest Trump’s request was done for political favor over a potential election opponent at this time because the Biden allegation has already been out in the public domain.

That’s why I’m not buying it as an impeachable offense.

 

[2A_Tom]

 

[jamil]

It is a Republic.

I suspect you’re just ****ing with me. Or maybe not. It’s like me saying I caught a fish, and you saying, no that’s a bluegill. Well, yeah, that’s the KIND of fish I caught, but it’s still a fish.

Our republic is a representative form of democracy. Democracy generally means government of self rule, whether it is directly by the people or through elected representatives of the people. When one simply says, “democracy” it does not imply direct democracy. Now if I said to Kut, why do you hate direct democracy? THEN it would be appropriate to correct that. Unless you’re ****ing with me. Then it’s always appropriate.

 

[bwframe]

Trump campaign, GOP raise $13M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

 

[jamil]

Trump campaign, GOP raise $13M after Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

Wow.

 

[2A_Tom]

I don't dance.

 

[Dead Duck]

Please take that to heart.

Heart's all in.

[video=youtube;LFxOaDeJmXk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFxOaDeJmXk[/video]