What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

Joe Bagadonuts said:
You were the one who claimed there was an investigation. All I am saying is that you were wrong.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Apparently Trump didn't think there was anything to investigate.
Trumpers sure seemed certain that all kinds of corruption was taking place though for some reason.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
 
If Hunter Biden should be charged, than ****ing charge him.

If Joe Biden should be charged, than ****ing charge him.

If Obama should be charged, than ****ing charge him.

Seeing as how the justice department hasn't yet the beat goes on that they're the most corrupt individuals in history, **** or get off the pot.
 
sirkickyass said:
Flynn was involved in a plot to kidnap Fethallah Gulen for $15 million. This was part of his association with Turkey. This has been in the public record for more than two years. They just aren't talking about it on Fox.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/10/michael-flynn-trump-turkish-dissident-cleric-plot

Your understanding is wrong. Flynn made a single plea to a false statements claim in exchange for not being charged with a variety of crimes, including FARA violations. There is no dispute that Flynn was acting as an unregistered foreign agent of Turkey and Russia.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/flynn-fisa-and-fara-foreign-principals-and-agents-foreign-powers

The Right wing people have a short memory. They want to make the entire thing about the one charge that Flynn plead to in exchange for dismissing all of the other charges they had him dead to rights on. It's comically in bad faith.

Flynn is a traitor. He's not the victim in this story. The allegations that he was framed make no sense if you read the documents.

Think for yourself! Read widely! Imagine that!
Click to expand...
Regardless of what you imply I listen to and read a lot of news other than Fox. You talk about the kidnapping as if it is real but it is not even part of the accusations that the Dems are so upset that Barr has dismissed.

Left wing people have a short memory too. Remember way back when they were saying "believe all women?"
 
Joe either didn't read or did not comprehend SKAs response to him.

Here we go one more time using the big crayons...

ALL OTHER CHARGES AGAINST FLYNN WERE DROPPED IN EXCHANGE FOR HIS PLEA DEAL ON ONE SINGLE CHARGE.

THAT WAS THE ENTIRE ****ING POINT OF MAKING THE DEAL FOR HIM, SO THAT ALL THE OTHER CHARGES WOULD BE DROPPED.

SO YOU SOUND EXTRA ****ING STUPID WHEN YOU SAY THE DEMS ONLY PURSUED ONE CHARGE THAT YOU DON'T CONSIDER A REAL CRIME (IT IS).
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
but it is not even part of the accusations that the Dems are so upset that Barr has dismissed.
Click to expand...

1. Barr can't dismiss the charges. Emmett Sullivan has to do that. Barr has filed a motion.

2. Do you understand how plea bargains work?

They can charge the perp with X number of crimes. In exchange for a guilty plea, they agree to only charge him with some of those crimes. This is a deal for both people as they don't have to go through the whole trial and the perp is sentenced only on some of the crimes.

Flynn plead guilty to the false statements case. Part of that deal is that he wasn't charged with FARA, Logan Act etc. AT the time this was widely perceived as generous to Flynn because he was cooperating with the Mueller probe.

Flynn is trying to undo the deal he made. To pretend as if the other offenses never existed or dont' exist is, frankly, indicative that you have no clue what happened.

I don't know why I even come round these parts. The conservatives on here are so low information and so insistent that they understand everything perfectly.
 
Last edited:


Swamp the drain! Donald is ukraining the state of Michigan this morning by threatening to to withhold funds for their flooding unless they stop giving absentee ballot applications. We were warned about this during his impeachment:



why doesn’t donald want people to vote in that swing state?

edit: he’s now attacking Nevada.
 
Last edited:
Harambe said:
So where is dawny getting his hydroxychloroquine supply to take daily? I can't find it, though I haven't looked very hard.

If he's taking it without a prescription, he's abusing medical guidelines. If he has a prescription, what's the rationale for the script?
Click to expand...
Why do you think he's taking it at all? I don't.
 
sirkickyass said:
You really need a better news diet Joe.

The problem with this whole theory is that Flynn's calls were "masked." The process of "unmasking" is literally "we dont' know who is making that phone call, but the underlying information is troubling and we need to know who it is."

By definition you can give an order to "unmask Michael Flynn" because then he'd already be unmasked.
Click to expand...

*can't
 
sirkickyass said:
1. Barr can't dismiss the charges. Emmett Sullivan has to do that. Barr has filed a motion.

2. Do you understand how plea bargains work?

They can charge the perp with X number of crimes. In exchange for a guilty plea, they agree to only charge him with some of those crimes. This is a deal for both people as they don't have to go through the whole trial and the perp is sentenced only on some of the crimes.

Flynn plead guilty to the false statements case. Part of that deal is that he wasn't charged with FARA, Logan Act etc. AT the time this was widely perceived as generous to Flynn because he was cooperating with the Mueller probe.

Flynn is trying to undo the deal he made. To pretend as if the other offenses never existed or dont' exist is, frankly, indicative that you have no clue what happened.

I don't know why I even come round these parts. The conservatives on here are so low information and so insistent that they understand everything perfectly.
Click to expand...
I don't know why I even come round these parts either. The liberals on here are so full of themselves and holier than thou that I want to vomit. It is likely that you have followed this case more closely than I have, and I apologize if you are completely wigged out that I said "dismiss" rather than "filed a motion," but the reality is that there are legal experts who vehemently disagree with much of what you are saying in regard to this case.
 
Joe Bagadonuts said:
I don't know why I even come round these parts either. The liberals on here are so full of themselves and holier than thou that I want to vomit. It is likely that you have followed this case more closely than I have, and I apologize if you are completely wigged out that I said "dismiss" rather than "filed a motion," but the reality is that there are legal experts who vehemently disagree with much of what you are saying in regard to this case.
Click to expand...

I acknowledge they are vehement. I don't acknowledge that they are anything more than hacks.

Part of the reason I linked to Lawfare is that it's a traditionally conservative national security law policy center. They actually came out with an article (which they've stated they regret) that everyone should give Bill Barr a chance. They have a ton of expertise, and in any other political circumstances they are clearly right of center. And it's beyond obvious to them that the entire circus around Flynn is plain administration corruption and in total bad faith.

But I follow both sides. I know that Fox News is giving air time to random tax law attorneys in Texas who will go on for twenty minutes about "unmasking" and be treated with reverential respect because they are saying the thing the hosts want to believe.

Look man. I followed all of this stuff very closely for years. It's obvious there's whole dimensions to this that you're totally unfamiliar with (the Gulen thing for example, or what the circumstances were of Flynn's charges). Why do you believe that you're capable of discerning who's an expert in this area and who isn't? Can you tell a good legal argument from a bad one?

Tell you what - the administration is very into selectively declassifying things these days in an attempt to make Flynn look good. Why don't they declassify the transcript of what Flynn said to Kislyak? It's not as if it's a national security secret: the Russians already know what he said and it's already public knowledge that the conversation happened. Do you think if that conversation looked good or exonerating that it would already be declassified?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top