What's new

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

How very unlucky for Trump that so many of his associates have turned out to be criminals. (Assuming these allegations have merit of course.)

Campaing manager and his deputy, campaign adviser/ fixer, NSA chief, personal lawyer/ fixer.

All guilty with jail time.

Rudy is clearly going down and I doubt he'll have much time outside jail for the rest of his life (unless pardoned).

You can't yet say that Trump is a criminal, but you can say that he surrounds himself with criminals.

Just like you can't say he is a white nationalist, but you can say that white nationalists love the guy.


unfortunately, it is not just trump who constantly loses, it is the whole damn country with him at the helm.

Who's going to vote for continued losing? Well, 40% of the country apparently.
 
Hopefully this will sway swing voters, but I think Trump supporters are generally the kind of people who would double down over something like this. Circle the wagons.
Trump supporters are going to support Trump. Nothing is going to change that. Nothing.

They can support him 100% or 110% or 120%. It actually doesn't make any difference.
 
Trump supporters are going to support Trump. Nothing is going to change that. Nothing.

They can support him 100% or 110% or 120%. It actually doesn't make any difference.

Trump knows this-- always has:

"One of the most famous and insightful lines Donald Trump offered on the campaign trail in 2016 came during a stop in Iowa, shortly before that state’s caucuses.
'I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and wouldn’t lose any voters, okay?' Trump said, mimicking firing a gun with his fingers. 'It’s, like, incredible.'
...
This idea that investigations of Trump are illegitimate extends beyond those centered on the president. When the Manhattan district attorney announced 16 new indictments against former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort on Wednesday, a Republican consultant who spoke with the New York Times made clear how it would be framed.
'Any and every action even perceived to be a threat against him or his presidency will be framed as political retribution and an effort to undermine his 2016 victory,' he said — echoing Lara Trump’s later interview."

(https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...upporters-would-call-his-murder-trial-biased/)

** Edit: Just a quick note, in case those reading this didn't notice: This article is total WaPo fake news. <shrug>
 
Last edited:
Hey @colton, not only are you Never Trumper Human Scum, but now you’re Demonic Human Scum! Time to turn in that temple recommend my friend, “mainstream” Christianity believes you’re demonic for not supporting our announced Dear Leader.
Franklin Graham, the son of the legendary preacher Billy Graham, has been one of Trump's most ardent Evangelical defenders. Last week, Graham compared Trump's political foes to "demonic forces."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/25/rick-perry-trump-gods-chosen-one/4295185002/

serious question, in modern-day history, has there ever been a democracy that has slide into such illiberal democracy where the majority is labeled “demonic” by the ruling minority for not supporting a believed “Sanctified Leader”, and civil war not ensued? What does this tell you about our democracy when mainstream leaders (like Perry) believe god anointed Trump and mainstream leaders of the predominate religion consider the opposition to be “demonic?”
 
Republicans continue to side with Putin bogus propaganda over loyal and competent American experts. Traitorous. They know it is total BS. They choose party over country, again and again.
https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1198666401826967552?s=21


Agsin, serious question, how does our democracy survive when one political party has given up on telling the truth and values defeating the opposing party as its greatest priority? Kennedy is putting our national security at risk and weaponizing Russian propaganda not only against those like Fiona Hill who keep us safe, but against the opposition party. Is there another case in the last 50 years of a democracy devolving like this and civil war or revolution not ensuing?
 
Here's a summary of positions, last updated 4 weeks ago so some of the candidates have dropped out since then: https://www.politico.com/2020-elect...he-issues/health-care/abortion-contraception/

12 candidates fall into the "few limits, if any" category.

4 candidates fall into the "some limits" category, Amy Klobuchar, Joe Biden, Joe Sestak, and Marianne Williamson. People in this category believe that under some conditions abortions in the last trimester should not be permitted. "During a Fox News town hall, Sen. Amy Klobuchar said "there are limits there in the third trimester that are very important — about — except for the health of the woman.” "

That means that with regards to the "few limits, if any" category, 12 of the Democratic candidates apparently think that there should be essentially no limitations on abortions in the third trimester. That's horrible, truly horrible. In the third trimester we're talking about fetuses which are 26-27 weeks along--babies, who if born have a 90% survival rate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viability

Another quote from a "some limits" candidate, this one from Joe Sestak: "In those very rare cases when a woman seeks to abort a healthy fetus that would likely survive outside the womb, it is reasonable to prohibit such an abortion, as long as there are no threats to the life or health of the woman." That is probably about the LEAST restrictive view on abortion that I could possibly ever support.

interesting. I support abortion with some limits. I do think there’s some push back from candidates who are trying to demonstrate their anger against some of the draconian anti-abortion measures passed in some states. I was unaware of the information you presented. Thanks.
 
Campaing manager and his deputy, campaign adviser/ fixer, NSA chief, personal lawyer/ fixer.

All guilty with jail time.

Rudy is clearly going down and I doubt he'll have much time outside jail for the rest of his life (unless pardoned).

You can't yet say that Trump is a criminal, but you can say that he surrounds himself with criminals.

Just like you can't say he is a white nationalist, but you can say that white nationalists love the guy.


unfortunately, it is not just trump who constantly loses, it is the whole damn country with him at the helm.

Who's going to vote for continued losing? Well, 40% of the country apparently.

It’s all fake news. King David also had convicted felons for friends, even though they were altruistic. King David also had to deal with demonic fake news media.
 
I'm sure there is merit to the allegations against the six people convicted of felonies.
Yes. I guess I had in mind how this particular one just adds to his unluckiness if it's true. Either the unluckiest president ever, worst judge of character ever, or maybe there's some other reason...
 
a) I pointed to China as an example where the President is negotiating with a foreign power, conducting foreign policy as he is empowered and obligated to do. If you want to be partisan, you can try to argue that Trump is 'extorting' trade concessions from China. However, it is precisely his job to do this in support of the national interest. That's just one example of how foreign relations works.

b) I don't think evidence is overwhelming at all. Nothing I've seen would hold up in a court of law. You can't establish charges of bribery or extortion unless a concrete (preferably quantified) demand was made to Zellenskyy that departs from Trump's normal foreign relations. Zellenskyy, or someone in his administration, would need to verify that this was the case, or you'd need an authentic record. Furthermore, you would need to show that asking (or even pressuring) Ukraine to help investigate U.S. State Dept. corruption is a clear departure from the nation's interest. Whereas, as President, Trump has every right to establish his foreign policy with Ukraine's new President Zellenskyy, even if former state dept. officials don't agree with it.

If the evidence were real, it could be summarized in two sentences. It doesn't take hours to list things.

You're saying that Trump is only trying to go after Biden for personal political reasons. I'm saying, and the Justice Department has publicly stated, that there is a much broader investigation into U.S. State Dept. corruption involving Ukraine going on. It started before Zellenskyy took office. It's not just the Crowdstrike server story. It's a bigger pay-to-play scheme that involved the Clintons, members of the Obama state department, as well as possibly Joe Biden, and it was covered up by the FBI.

That's John Durham's investigation. You seem to be ignoring its existence, although in all fairness, several details have been kept quiet as the investigation is ongoing.

Many people, myself included, agree with the Justice Dept. that pursuing this investigation is very much in the nation's interest, even if the convictions it yields are few. You and others are welcome to disagree, but that is simply your own personal view and not grounds to impeach a President for high crimes or misdemeanors.

c) I thought your questions were being flippant, but I'll answer them here --- Yes, attempted murder, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion are serious crimes. However, no crime has been shown to be committed by Trump. No serious prosecutor would pursue this case based on what's surfaced in hearings. Now granted, impeachment is a political process rather than a purely legal one. However, if/when this goes to trial in the Senate, it will get dismissed quickly, not on merely partisan grounds, but because the evidence is weak. There's an allegation made by an anonymous whistleblower who claims to have second-hand or third-hand conversations and an interpretation of circumstantial facts.

To make this case, you pretty much need Zellenskyy or someone he appointed to say, "Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid unless we fabricate evidence against Joe Biden." Or you'd need a voice recording that establishes the same. You need real evidence of the threat (withhold the aid) and the cure ("make up dirt") to create the case.

So far, Zellenskyy is denying that this is what happened, which stands as evidence against the claim. So you also need to show that the person who is being bribed or extorted is aware that he is being bribed or extorted.

OK, I have to extract myself from this conversation with you. It's causing me to dislike and despise you probably in larger proportion than you deserve. I'll reply to this one but then not to any more, so you can have the last word for now if you want.

The evidence is indeed overwhelming, with multiple credible witnesses who have testified to their own personal knowledge of the extortion/bribery/whatever you want to call it. The transcript (record) of the famous phone call between Trump and Zelensky. The people who overheard other the phone call between Trump and Sondland. Sondland's own testimony, saying there was indeed a quid pro quo.


The evidences that Giuliani was directing much of this despite not being part of the government. The substantial evidences of a cover-up, including illegally moving the transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call to a codeword only server. Heck, you have apparently forgotten that Trump's own chief of staff LITERALLY admitted it!


"If the evidence were real, it could be summarized in two sentences. It doesn't take hours to list things." --> It would take me hours not because the evidence is hard to understand, but because there is SO MUCH OF IT. I made the above list in maybe 5 minutes, and I could pretty easily keep going for another 55 mins.

Regarding John Durham's investigation, which you seem to place so much stock in, a) it's not at all clear what he's investigating, and b) whatever it is, it's very likely politically motivated and not part of an actual effort by the DOJ to root out corruption anywhere.

"I thought your questions were being flippant, but I'll answer them here --- Yes, attempted murder, arson, robbery, bribery, or extortion are serious crimes." --> Good, hold on to that. Trump and company are in the process of moving the goal posts. They will soon say/have already started saying, "OK, this is extortion and bribery, but it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable offense." So be prepared for the goal post to move but don't move your statement that bribery and extortion are serious crimes. The evidence is indeed overwhelming, and if you open your eyes you can see it. So maybe you will come around at some point.

"To make this case, you pretty much need Zellenskyy or someone he appointed to say, "Trump threatened to withhold foreign aid unless we fabricate evidence against Joe Biden." Or you'd need a voice recording that establishes the same... So far, Zellenskyy is denying that this is what happened, which stands as evidence against the claim. So you also need to show that the person who is being bribed or extorted is aware that he is being bribed or extorted." --> No, that's not true. There's substantial credible evidence that Ukraine was aware of the extortion. Again, if I had an hour I could list it out. And where there's substantial evidence of extortion, you don't need testimony from the person being extorted--particularly when that individual is appropriately afraid of the repercussions such testimony would bring.

"You need real evidence of the threat (withhold the aid) and the cure ("make up dirt") to create the case." --> Yes, and the direct testimony of several eye- and ear-witnesses is real evidence.
 
Is it me?

Nope! :)


My neighbor in Florida asked me if I was a Trumper. I said I couldn't support a guy with 25 sexual misconduct allegations against him. It was a 3 minute conversation. He can't get over it and keeps texting me. :) I haven't even responded except for our original conversation on his driveway. Trumpers are a special breed.


View attachment 8522

Sent from my SM-G930V using JazzFanz mobile app
Wow. Feel free to email him a nice selection of my posts from this thread. :)
 
More fake news:


“Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain. The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.”


Oh, nvm. It’s Peggy Noonan, conservative and highly respected author, Reagan advisor and speechwriter.

how have the never trumpers converted her? She seems so sensible, logical, intelligent and unbiased. It is almost like there is some compelling underlying truth that moves her to this conclusion.
 
Unfortunately, the DOJ will appeal and this Will be delayed once again for months all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Still a victory for the rule of law, though. And I think the Supreme Court can and does fast track things from time to time, so who knows what will happen. Even though it's a 5-4 split right now, I have a hard time believing all of the Republican-appointed justices are happy with what Trump is doing to this country.
 
Top