It's official, Trump has been Acquitted

[Ingomike]

"Only?" I don't think that is an acceptable litmus test. If something is 99% corrupt and 1% in the "interest" of the nation, that's impeachable wrongdoing IMO. Further, the "where is the evidence Trump did not do this in the best interest of the nation," can easily be turned around and asked of Joe Biden's situation. The difference being that Biden has numerous people, entities, and nations that would back his actions as being appropriate. The president doesn't have that. What he does have is administration officials, decorated soldiers, ambassadors, all indicating they had issue with his actions and silence by the Ukrainian govt not want to get involved.... Wait, I'll amend that. The president does have someone that says he's doing the right thing.... The guy currently involved in a hot war with the Ukraine and whose intelligence agencies assisted in the election of the president; ole Vlad.



And investigating the Biden's? What proof do people have that there was any wrongdoing? Now, if you hold that the investigation into Trump, was witchhunt, hoax, or illegitimate... don't you have to say the same for the Biden's given your statement?

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I too would like to see the where in law or statutes that a sitting President asking a foreign government to investigate anyone suspected of the type of wrongdoing listed below is even unethical.

As for your final point, if Don Jr. was pulling millions out of a country DJT was bragging he threatened to withhold aid from and had a prosector fired in you would be going nuts on it. That you fail to acknowledge that major difference is enlightening...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Cite the chapter and verse then of the specific part of the law that's broken.

Sorry, not a crime, but an inappropriate act, possibly leading to censure, removal from committees, and civil liability.

 

[Ingomike]

Four southern belles were discussing their husbands one afternoon

1st Southern Belle: "Well, ah do declare, my husband is so good to me.
He brings me diamonds near' every day of the week. I got a diamond
ring for every finger."

2SB: "My My My"

3SB: "You know, my husbands is the same way. He brings me fur coats
all the time. I got a whole closet full of fur coats."

2SB: "My My My"

4SB: "Mine too. He takes me on cruises and trips. I've been nearly
everywhere on this whole blessed earth."

2SB: "My My My"

(Nervous pause)

1SB to 2SB: "How does your husband treat you?"

2SB: "Oh, my husband is good to me too. He sent me off to finishin' school."

(Nervous pause)

3SB to 2SB: "Finishin' school? What good is goin' to finishin' school?"

2SB: "Well, I used to say 'F**k you', now I just say 'My My My.'"

 

[Kutnupe14]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I too would like to see the where in law or statutes that a sitting President asking a foreign government to investigate anyone suspected of the type of wrongdoing listed below is even unethical.

As for your final point, if Don Jr. was pulling millions out of a country DJT was bragging he threatened to withhold aid from and had a prosector fired in you would be going nuts on it. That you fail to acknowledge that major difference is enlightening...

It seems to me, that if Obama, secretly asked a foreign nation to investigate Don Jr, to help him politically, involving his personal lawyer, and then threatening to withhold congressionally approved aid from that nation unless they complied... he would have been impeached, just as Trump was.... and more than likely removed.

 

[jamil]

Sorry, not a crime, but an inappropriate act, possibly leading to censure, removal from committees, and civil liability.

Thank you. Now about that. Everyone knows who it is. At this point, refusing to say just that one name, only reinforces who it is. Nevertheless. Rand Paul has a valid question that should be answered. There's smoke there. Did Schiff and Caramelmarshmellow conspire to fabricate an impeachment?

 

[jamil]

It seems to me, that if Obama, secretly asked a foreign nation to investigate Don Jr, to help him politically, involving his personal lawyer, and then threatening to withhold congressionally approved aid from that nation unless they complied... he would have been impeached, just as Trump was.... and more than likely removed.

No, Obama could not have been impeached. There was no political capital for that, and no media buy-in. The House would never have been able to pass articles of impeachment in the first place, even with a Republican majority. Republicans are very afraid of appearance. No way that goes anywhere even if Obama were actually guilty of all that. As well, Obama's own administration was very intolerant of leaks. There's no way Republicans could have gotten enough evidence to prove anything during that administration. Of course that speaks volumes about the Trump administration and its faults, and the lack of respect people have for him and his authority as POTUS.

 

[Dead Duck]

OK....
Push the Closed Captions button then - Read the Transcript.

[video=youtube;UXA--dj2-CY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY[/video]

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, Obama could not have been impeached. There was no political capital for that, and no media buy-in. The House would never have been able to pass articles of impeachment in the first place, even with a Republican majority. Republicans are very afraid of appearance. No way that goes anywhere even if Obama were actually guilty of all that. As well, Obama's own administration was very intolerant of leaks. There's no way Republicans could have gotten enough evidence to prove anything during that administration. Of course that speaks volumes about the Trump administration and its faults, and the lack of respect people have for him and his authority as POTUS.

I believe otherwise, as I'm sure GOP constituents would have been calling for his head. And obviously, with the election of Cheetos jesus, Republicans ain't worried about appearances.

 

[Ingomike]

THERE IS NO WHISTLEBLOWER!

There is only some actor that Shifty personally hand picked and designated to be the whistleblower to fit this whole narrative to oust a sitting President. (one of many attempts)

I worked in theatre over 25 years and this whole charade is just one huge performance with some really bad acting. It's so blatantly obvious you'd have to be dead, blind or [STRIKE]stupid[/STRIKE] democrat not to see it.


Smoke and mirrors....
Just Smoke and mirrors....

This is correct, there is no whistleblower, but there is a "whistleblower" as Jamil notes. This link, way to long to repost here lays out how it all started with carmelmarshmellow and the Schiff staffer in a meeting in 2017 where they were informed as government employees the administrations foreign policy approach. They were observed in that meeting openly discussing how they could go about impeaching Trump to stop the policy the didn't agree with. Schiff hired the one guy the day after the Ukraine call, it is believed that Carmelmarshmellow was the one who leaked the call to Lt. Col. Vindman. All very rehearsed and planned to make this try...

https://www.realclearinvestigations...ing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html

 

[jamil]

I believe otherwise, as I'm sure GOP constituents would have been calling for his head. And obviously, with the election of Cheetos jesus, Republicans ain't worried about appearances.

Calling for an impeachment, and making a lot of noise, yes. They did that anyway. Actually going through with it all the way through passing articles of impeachment? No ****ing way. In the first place, Paul Ryan wouldn't have had the stones even to hold hearings about thinking about it. But in any case, no way they were gonna impeach Axelrod's black jesus while the press was nuzzlng his sack. If you think they would have gone that far, you're not as politically astute as I thought. Obama held political clout over Republicans his entire two terms.

ETA: The only two times Republicans really got the upper hand over Obama was the sequestration battle, which was absurd because thereafter they didn't seem to give a flying **** how much they spent...it was all about getting a win on anything, and then the second victory was the Senate scuttling the SCOTUS nomination during the lame duck phase. The last one will probably cost Republicans eventually though so it was probably a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

 

[Ingomike]

Sorry, not a crime, but an inappropriate act, possibly leading to censure, removal from committees, and civil liability.

All the repercussions you cite are simply political, as best I know not even in congressional ethics...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Calling for an impeachment, and making a lot of noise, yes. They did that anyway. Actually going through with it all the way through passing articles of impeachment? No ****ing way. In the first place, Paul Ryan wouldn't have had the stones even to hold hearings about thinking about it. But in any case, no way they were gonna impeach Axelrod's black jesus while the press was nuzzlng his sack. If you think they would have gone that far, you're not as politically astute as I thought. Obama held political clout over Republicans his entire two terms.

ETA: The only two times Republicans really got the upper hand over Obama was the sequestration battle, which was absurd because thereafter they didn't seem to give a flying **** how much they spent...it was all about getting a win on anything, and then the second victory was the Senate scuttling the SCOTUS nomination during the lame duck phase. The last one will probably cost Republicans eventually though so it was probably a bit of a Pyrrhic victory.

Nope, can't use that. It's already well known that Jesus was black. See Good Times for proof. So you're speaking about the wrong person.

 

[jamil]

All the repercussions you cite are simply political, as best I know not even in congressional ethics...

It is unethical in some contexts. Or at the very minimum, bad form. Government should generally seek to protect people willing to uncover wrongdoing.

The press usually has a policy that they won't divulge the name of whistle-blowers unless it's already out there.

This case is different because there is a strong possibility that the whistleblower was politically motivated, and possibly conspired before hand with the guy who is at the forefront of the prosecution of the president. And, as we all know Eric Caramelmarshmellow is the whistleblower, and at this point its kinda ridiculous to continue the facade of keeping his name secret.

One other thing I'd like to talk about. When it comes to this sort of thing, I think it's wrong for Republicans to insist that Trump has a right to face a whistleblower as an accuser. A whistleblower is not necessarily an accuser as such. It's a person who has knowledge of something that may be wrongdoing, and then reports it. It's up to the appropriate channels to determine if it was inappropriate or not, and what action to take from there.

I'm pretty sure if an anonymous whistleblower had come forward with information that indicated Obama ordered the IRS to disfavor conservative orgs, many of you who think Trump should get to face his accuser might not be so eager for Obama to face his. And again, I want to reiterate that coming forward with evidence of potential wrongdoing and reporting it to the proper authorities is not operating as an accuser per se.

While I think that a right to face one's accuser doesn't apply to Caramelmarshmellow as a whistleblower, I think in this case he is a material witness and Republicans should have been allowed to call him as a witness during the House impeachment procedings.

 

[jamil]

Nope, can't use that. It's already well known that Jesus was black. See Good Times for proof. So you're speaking about the wrong person.

Two people can have the same name. Take it up with Axelrod.

 

[printcraft]

Nope, can't use that. It's already well known that Jesus was black. See Good Times for proof. So you're speaking about the wrong person.

No black Jesus? How about what Al Sharpton called him?

 

[jamil]

No black Jesus? How about what Al Sharpton called him?

I'm not aware of anything controversial there. Got a link? It's got me curious.

 

[printcraft]

I'm not aware of anything controversial there. Got a link? It's got me curious.

Oh wait, that was the LA Times. Sorry, it's been a decade or so.

 

[nonobaddog]

There are so many black jesi that there is no unique usage.

 

[jamil]

Oh wait, that was the LA Times. Sorry, it's been a decade or so.

I'm always eager to hear the latest pejorative, so if you come across something...

So far I'm most partial to Nobama. Maybe Baraquette is a close second. But I'm open to something better.

 

[indiucky]

And obviously, with the election of Cheetos jesus

I have a dream.....