What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Zombie said:
Mueller did a ****** job, is one of the things we're learning.

Click to expand...


****** job? Or giving the executive ALLLLLLL the benefit of doubt? Or is there a difference?

All of the memos I’ve seen so far either were barely touched on in the report or completely omitted. Which brings up the question... ummmm why?

For example, I don’t recall this:

In an April 2018 interview with the special counsel’s office, Rick Gates, who had served as deputy Trump campaign chair and had long been Paul Manafort’s right hand, told investigators that after the campaign learned the DNC had been hacked, Manafort pushed the theory that Ukraine, not Russia, had orchestrated the attack. It’s a conspiracy theory that’s persisted in right-wing circles, even after the US Intelligence Community concluded Russia was involved, and one that Trump brought up in his July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
Click to expand...

Of course dumbass Manafort wanted to convince Trump that Ukraine was responsible for the hacking. It’s exactly what Putin would’ve wanted. Duh. Yet, I don’t recall reading this explicitly in the report. Manafort’s story gets bogged down in the report with all of his meetings across the world with shady people.

I wish Manafort’s motives had been more explicitly told. And the disinformation campaign against Ukraine, had it been more explicit, would’ve explained much about the current situation that we’re in.

Or how about this? I don’t recall this even in the report:

“Gates recalled a time on the campaign aircraft when candidate Trump said, ‘get the emails,'” said the memo. “Flynn said he could use his intelligence sources to obtain the emails.”

The memo went on to say that Flynn “was adamant the Russians did not carry out the hack” of the Democratic National Committee or Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, and “to support this theory Flynn advised, based on his experience, the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) was not capable of figuring it out.”
Click to expand...

And this I don’t recall even being in the report yet I don’t understand why? This doesn’t seem like an impossible case to break. Mueller’s team couldn’t track credit cards? Electronic communications? Interviews with the boat’s staff to find out who this oligarch was and what was discussed?

Bannon told FBI investigators that Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner were on vacation in Croatia with a “Russian billionaire” in August 2016 — appearing to confirm a long-suspected and long-denied connection between Trump world and a Russian oligarch.
Click to expand...

Lastly:

Rick Gates, who served as Trump’s deputy campaign chair, told Robert Mueller’s team last year that the release of the hacked emails “offered a mode of deflection for the campaign after a sink in polling numbers following Trump's comments about Ted Cruz's father at the end of the Republican National Convention,” according to interview summaries obtained by BuzzFeed News.

Cruz, a senator from Texas, refused to endorse Trump at the convention. Afterwards, Trump made a comment linking Cruz’s father to President John F. Kennedy’s killer.

Gates also told investigators that the Republican National Committee had “non-public information” about the timing of the Wikileaks releases, but “did not specify who at the RNC knew this information.”
Click to expand...

who knew at the RNC? That seems vitally important. Mueller couldn’t find this out? Really? Cmon.

This brings up 2 issues for me:

1. How deep is the rot in the RNC? Have they been so compromised that they now must pledge loyalty to Trump because they’ve become willing partners in his crime family? Does this explain their reluctance to hold him accountable for anything?
2. What other corrupt deals is Trump involved in? I’m looking right at the leaders and elites in Turkey, UAE, and Saudi Arabia.
 
A couple of informative articles. This Washington Post piece describes the basis for Trump's hatred of Ukraine, how that loathing has been there from the start of his term, and how it is a highly irrational hatred, which may in fact be irreversible, and built on a foundation of baseless conspiracy theory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...80ee60-fcc5-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

And the same article, for those unable to access the Post:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...e-heart-of-the-impeachment-inquiry/ar-AAJKphQ

And in this Quartz article, we see described the basis of the defense that Republican senators will likely utilize once any articles of impeachment reach the Senate:

https://qz.com/1740961/why-trumps-state-of-mind-will-be-key-in-impeachment/
 
Red said:
A couple of informative articles. This Washington Post piece describes the basis for Trump's hatred of Ukraine, how that loathing has been there from the start of his term, and how it is a highly irrational hatred, which may in fact be irreversible, and built on a foundation of baseless conspiracy theory:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...80ee60-fcc5-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html

And the same article, for those unable to access the Post:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...e-heart-of-the-impeachment-inquiry/ar-AAJKphQ

And in this Quartz article, we see described the basis of the defense that Republican senators will likely utilize once any articles of impeachment reach the Senate:

https://qz.com/1740961/why-trumps-state-of-mind-will-be-key-in-impeachment/
Click to expand...

IMG_20191103_120623.jpg

Vlad must be very proud.
 
Zombie said:
View attachment 8427

Vlad must be very proud.
Click to expand...

kinda makes you wonder what else he’s been convinced of by strongmen across the world, right? And what he might do if re-elected in 2020, right?

But whatever, it’s okay. I’m being told by pundits on the right, like Rich Lowry, that impeaching the president this close to an election would divide the country too much. So let’s keep him in office at least another year with an award of potentially 4 more years after that. USA USA USA!
 
Harambe said:
Can I see the evidence on that?
Click to expand...
Don't be an idiot. I'm talking about the future there.

However, I have gone over the publicly available information in California, where there was a boast from the State officials about an amazing voter turnout notably in LA and SF something like 75% of registered voters..... and I have gone over the case filed by Judicial Watch, where they won a court order in LA requiring the elimination of millions of out of date "registered voters" who no longer live there....trying to locate these voters has been convincing of the claim that once the moved-out registrants who can't be found are taken off the rolls, there was about a 120% voter turnout in LA county.

Hillary did very well with all those dead and moved-out voters, it seems.

You're a complete idiot to ask for proof of stuff like this, as if you believe dems are honest folks. I wouldn't be too sure Rs don't or wouldn't do stuff like that either.

Until you get on board with demanding a fair vote, legal registration of citizens only, and all that ****.
 
colton said:
That plus the constant accusation of being a liberal, lol.
Click to expand...

The claim of being a liberal is inherent in most of your opinions. Even Mitt is a liberal. It goes with the progressive idea of making a better world through cliqish elitist governance, rather than the will of the voters.

The fact that Trump has tried to be inclusive, letting Obama-picked folks sit in on his administration, trying to get CFR folks included in American decisions, has left him open to a lot of malingering critics within his own team.

The people being sourced for the ongoing string of claims against him are committed to the progressive narrative, committed to taking down Trump. They are categorical liars.

No American President has ever been targeted like Trump has been.

Not to say he's an angel, but nobody can ever be a President in the USA when subjected to a campaign like this.

You don't do much self-evaluation..... the whole woke "Resistance" movement is destructive of the American political electoral process. It displaces the vote with the power held by entrenched bureaucracy and administrative officials. You're destroying the ability of anybody to be an effective administrator. You're destroying the power of voters to effectively direct government.

I didn't like much of what Obama did. I don't want his idea of "change". I don't like "open borders or the UN program. Global governance concentrated power farther and farther away from the affected people. I didn't do a "Resistance" to Obama's use of the IRS to attack his opposition, or his use of executive agencies to intimidate AP and other news organizations, or his handout of billions in support of Middle East terrorism. I thought we had a chance to make things better because a lot of people were aware of these abuses.

Until you get as concerned about abuses of executive or Presidental powers when it's the progressives doing it, you're missing the boat entirely for making this a better world.

Used be "liberal" meant someone who wanted people to be respected in their rights and differing opinions. You are not that kind of "liberal". Mitt, and others like him, though they call themselves "Republicans" hardly believe in the idea of federalism, by which people can have much of their government close enough to home they actually have a say in it. Mitt, and the Zion's Bank chief, and other old-line RINO folks, have gutted the once-effective primary process in Utah, which could actually get a Mike Lee. And Mike Lee, like Mia Love, apparently has lost his bearings for actually effective democracy.

Too much money behind progressive ideals. Not much money behind democratic ideals or human rights.
 
babe said:
Don't be an idiot. I'm talking about the future there.

However, I have gone over the publicly available information in California, where there was a boast from the State officials about an amazing voter turnout notably in LA and SF something like 75% of registered voters..... and I have gone over the case filed by Judicial Watch, where they won a court order in LA requiring the elimination of millions of out of date "registered voters" who no longer live there....trying to locate these voters has been convincing of the claim that once the moved-out registrants who can't be found are taken off the rolls, there was about a 120% voter turnout in LA county.

Hillary did very well with all those dead and moved-out voters, it seems.

You're a complete idiot to ask for proof of stuff like this, as if you believe dems are honest folks. I wouldn't be too sure Rs don't or wouldn't do stuff like that either.

Until you get on board with demanding a fair vote, legal registration of citizens only, and all that ****.
Click to expand...

You're consistently one of if not the biggest bullshitters on the internet. Proof, or stfu
 
Harambe said:
You're consistently one of if not the biggest bullshitters on the internet. Proof, or stfu
Click to expand...

There's too much proof. If you've missed it, it's because you won't be convinced. But, I'll gather some and start a thread about it. Just for you. OB couldn't or wouldn't refute what I gave him.
 
colton said:
Click to expand...


More political hack judges from the Trumpdumpster.

Congressional elected officials and diplomatic representatives have some communities from criminal charges.

There has been no criminal allegation made about Trump and his taxes, and no President is required by any law to produce his tax returns. If the IRS has no case, you have no case. The State of New York has no case, it's just a demand. No warrant or arrest can be legally made without cause, and NY has no cause to believe any crime has been committed. But it seems some judges want to ignore the law.

I see the need for protecting government officials from politically malicious harassment.
 
babe said:
There's too much proof. If you've missed it, it's because you won't be convinced. But, I'll gather some and start a thread about it. Just for you. OB couldn't or wouldn't refute what I gave him.
Click to expand...
Yet you can't provide any?

I tell you what. Let's just discuss baselines.

How do you determine what is/isn't a legitimate vote?
 


I don't know what's more ridiculous, that Sean Hannity was the one deciding this for the Secretary of State or that they told Yovanovitch that Hannity was the one deciding this.
 
Harambe said:
Proof
Click to expand...

Details here. But, what is not here is evidence that any inactive voters who moved, died, or were ineligible actually voted in California:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ion_inactive_voters_on_its_rolls__140602.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/fact-check-trump-voter-fraud-california/index.html

Host Chuck Todd asked Trump if he is bothered by the fact that he lost the popular vote in 2016. Trump responded: "Well, I think it was a -- I mean, I'll say something that, again, is controversial. There were a lot of votes cast that I don't believe. I look at California."
He continued: "Take a look at Judicial Watch, take a look at their settlement where California admitted to a million votes. They admitted to a million votes."

Facts First: California made no such admission. And there is no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud in California.

In January, the conservative group Judicial Watch announced that it had settled its 2017 lawsuit against the state of California and the county of Los Angeles. The settlement required the county to remove the names of inactive voters from its voter lists, and it required the state to direct other counties to remove inactive voters from their own lists.

Trump got the "1 million" figure from Judicial Watch: the group said that as many as 1.5 million registrations would have to be removed in Los Angeles County as a result of the settlement.

But there was no evidence that any of these inactive people voted illegally; Judicial Watch itself said most of them are simply "voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away." And California did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
 
Red said:
Details here. But, what is not here is evidence that any inactive voters who moved, died, or were ineligible actually voted in California:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ion_inactive_voters_on_its_rolls__140602.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/24/politics/fact-check-trump-voter-fraud-california/index.html

Host Chuck Todd asked Trump if he is bothered by the fact that he lost the popular vote in 2016. Trump responded: "Well, I think it was a -- I mean, I'll say something that, again, is controversial. There were a lot of votes cast that I don't believe. I look at California."
He continued: "Take a look at Judicial Watch, take a look at their settlement where California admitted to a million votes. They admitted to a million votes."

Facts First: California made no such admission. And there is no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud in California.

In January, the conservative group Judicial Watch announced that it had settled its 2017 lawsuit against the state of California and the county of Los Angeles. The settlement required the county to remove the names of inactive voters from its voter lists, and it required the state to direct other counties to remove inactive voters from their own lists.

Trump got the "1 million" figure from Judicial Watch: the group said that as many as 1.5 million registrations would have to be removed in Los Angeles County as a result of the settlement.

But there was no evidence that any of these inactive people voted illegally; Judicial Watch itself said most of them are simply "voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away." And California did not admit any wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
Click to expand...

As expected, @Red is not helping your story, @babe. Neither is the state of California. Or CNN. Or Heritage.org. Remarkably, I'm still willing to entertain the notion that 6 million fake votes were cast, or will be cast in the next election.

Unless we want to talk voter suppression? No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top