What's new
By:
Filters

The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

colton said:
Click to expand...


President Warren/Biden/Harris/Buttigieg will now have to spend their first term (at least) cleaning up this mess. Good luck trying to get allies. So many lives are being ruined right now and for no good reason.

Did you see how Trump dismissed the idea of escaped ISIS fighters?



Imagine any other American president saying that. There was a time when we cared about our European allies. Not anymore. Think they’ll want to help us out when they’re treated by our president like this?
 
Jazzta said:
:eek:
Click to expand...

To be fair, I didn’t insult you. I instructed you to watch the video. If you still don’t get the point of posting it, then yes, you should feel stupid. The point is pretty obvious. Then again, you denied Russia’s interference in our 2016 election two days ago. Sooooooo
 
The Thriller said:
To be fair, I didn’t insult you. I instructed you to watch the video. If you still don’t get the point of posting it, then yes, you should feel stupid. The point is pretty obvious. Then again, you denied Russia’s interference in our 2016 election two days ago. Sooooooo
Click to expand...

I remember getting an infraction for implying that being attracted to him is only one of the possible reasons for thinking McConaughey movies/shows are amazing.

I don't even remember who that was. Can that person step forward and tell me what they thought of The Dark Tower, and Free State of Jones?

And do you still want to see my abs?
 
colton said:
Your head is buried in the sand, then. Here are some that seem the most egregious to me:

1) Blatant violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution. I've been complaining about that since day 1. People curry favor with him by spending money on his properties (Trump tower New York, Mar-a-lago, the Scotland property, etc.). And his business holdings very well might be impacting his policy decisions (Trump towers in Turkey, for example).

2) Violating campaign finance laws. Need I remind you that he is literally an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the case that sentenced Michael Cohen to jail. Anyone else in the country would also have gone to jail for that. And he still might when he is out of office.

3) Obstruction of justice. See the Mueller Report, volume 2, which details several episodes that almost certainly would have caused obstruction charges to be filed against anyone else in the country. Here's a summary of some of those items (from https://www.lawfareblog.com/so-you-want-impeach-president): "Even if one believes that firing FBI Director James Comey was a wholly legitimate move, the president didn’t stop there. He also attempted to dissuade witnesses, specifically Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn and Michael Cohen, from cooperating with federal authorities. He attempted to corruptly persuade Attorney General Jeff Sessions to limit the scope of the investigation and to reverse his decision to recuse himself from personal involvement in the face of conflicts. He attempted to limit the investigation by pressuring Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to fire the special counsel. And he endeavored to have White House Counsel Don McGahn create a false record regarding Trump’s actions with respect to efforts to fire Robert Mueller." One can add his statements about the whistleblower to those items.

4) Abuse of power, namely "his attempts to leverage the power of the presidency to cause investigation and prosecution of political opponents" (phrasing from lawfare). This includes involving Rudy Giuliani--who is NOT a US government employee but rather Trump's personal lawyer/campaign employee--in attempts to pressure foreign governments to dig up dirt on Hunter and Joe Biden. Giuliani literally admitted this on the air. And if, as you may be thinking, it's about exposing corruption in general, (a) why did the requests to investigate criminal activity not go through government channels? (b) why are the Bidens the ONLY individuals that Giuliani and Trump cared about? Where are any requests to invest any other potentially corrupt individuals?

5) More abuse of power, namely his withholding of the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine in order to pressure them, again about the Bidens. It is a crime to withhold funds like that. Again in the words of the lawfare article which states things better than I can, "[there was] “collusion” with a foreign power for purposes of electoral advantage, gross misuse of congressionally appropriated funds, and pressuring a foreign leader for reasons of personal gain rather than public concern."

6) Repeatedly and unabashedly lying to the public. While not illegal, this is still unpresidential and impeachable. It was in fact, one of the impeachment articles against Nixon. And the quantity of Trump's lies leave Nixon's lies in the dust.

7) Obstruction of Congress. Trump is telling government employees not to cooperate with the Houses's impeachment investigation, including directions telling people to ignore subpoenas. That's obstruction. Most recent example was the former Ukrainian ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, who defied Trump's illegal order to testify on Friday, but there have been several others. The President's failure to cooperate with Congress was in fact one of the impeachment articles against Andrew Johnson--article 10 of that impeachment reads in part as follows (from https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm): "ARTICLE 10.That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his high office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and the legislative power thereof, which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain, and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted"

I'm sure there's more that could be added to the list but I'll stop there. And I'll remind people of my sig quote: "There aren’t enough tax cuts and judges in the world to justify a president who stands on the stage with Vladimir Putin and sides against America’s intelligence community; who ignores, if not invites, foreign interference in our elections and normalizes unprecedented levels of corruption and incompetence; who abdicates moral leadership both at home and abroad; who lies and obstructs justice and then lies about obstructing justice."

And of course there's this list I made for post 3 of this thread--a myriad of items which include some of the above. Imo many of these are also impeachable, although not all of them are criminal (the racism, for example).
  • racism
  • sex crimes
  • concentration camps
  • corruption
  • traitor
  • obstruction of justice
  • attacks on rule of law
  • assault on freedom of the press
  • pathological lying
  • unfitness for office
  • incompetence
  • attacks on our most important allies and alliances
  • systematic destruction of our environment
  • violation of international treaties and agreements
  • embrace of our enemies
  • defense of murdering dictators
  • serial undermining of our national security
  • nepotism
  • attacks on our federal law enforcement and intelligence communities
  • fiscal recklessness
  • degradation of the office and of public discourse in America
  • support of Nazis and white supremacists
  • the dead in Puerto Rico and the at the border
  • turning the US government into a criminal conspiracy to empower and enrich the president and his supporters
  • weaponization of politics in America to attack the weak
Click to expand...

Update on my impeachable point #6, Trump now up to 13,435 documented false or misleading claims:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...tid=lk_inline_manual_2&tid=lk_inline_manual_3
 
silesian said:
Kudos to Trump for condemning the video. Seriously.
Click to expand...

I am sincere. There are quite a few things I like about trump policy including China trade policy, criminal justice reform, deregulation and others.

when he does the right thing we should say so. And he did the right thing.
 
Last edited:
Back from my ban for saying a Trump supporter had his Fuhrer's back in excusing the Ukraine affair. I guess I touched a nerve.

So... where were we? Geez, it's all happening so fast. It seems like just yesterday, but that was actually way back before Trump began to use the lives of Kurdish women and children as cover for his Ukrainian extortion.
 
str8line said:
Back from my ban for saying a Trump supporter had his Fuhrer's back in excusing the Ukraine affair. I guess I touched a nerve.

So... where were we? Geez, it's all happening so fast. It seems like just yesterday, but that was actually way back before Trump began to use the lives of Kurdish women and children as cover for his Ukrainian extortion.
Click to expand...
I was wondering what happened to you lol
 
str8line said:
Back from my ban for saying a Trump supporter had his Fuhrer's back in excusing the Ukraine affair. I guess I touched a nerve.

So... where were we? Geez, it's all happening so fast. It seems like just yesterday, but that was actually way back before Trump began to use the lives of Kurdish women and children as cover for his Ukrainian extortion.
Click to expand...

We missed you, hopefully you can bring some common sense and unity to this board.
 
As the article title offers "4 Intriguing Moments from the Trump-Ukraine Timeline". The business about Sondland having spoken of a quid pro quo prior to the text message to Taylor throwing cold water on the idea, is something I was not aware of:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/14/intriguing-moments-trump-ukraine-timeline/

We found out this weekend that Trump’s European Union ambassador, Gordon Sondland, isn’t exactly going to go to bat for his boss. As The Post’s Aaron C. Davis and John Hudson report, Sondland will say that his Sept. 9 text message claiming there was no quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine was just him relaying what Trump had told him — not that he was actually vouching for its accuracy.

What’s about as telling, though, is what Sondland was saying before that Sept. 9 text message. Specifically, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has said Sondland suggested, as of late August, that there was some kind of quid pro quo:


Late August: Sondland tells Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that Trump was withholding the Ukraine military aid to “get to the bottom of what happened in 2016 — if President Trump has that confidence, then he’ll release the military spending," according to Johnson’s later recollection to the Wall Street Journal.

Sept. 1: Taylor texts Sondland, asking, “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland responds, “Call me.”

Sept. 9: Taylor texts Sondland again about the idea that the military aid is being withheld in some kind of quid pro quo. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Taylor says.

Sondland speaks with Trump via phone and responds to Taylor: “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”

Exactly what Sondland told Johnson isn’t clear, but we’ll learn more from his deposition Thursday. And the timing suggests Sondland was quite worried, at least at some point, that there was a quid pro quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top