Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Apparently he is demonstrating that you don't know some of the very relevant facts of this case.
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Apparently he is demonstrating that you don't know some of the very relevant facts of this case.
Thanks! (But considering I had a daughter get married last month it seems unlikely that's the number. Of course, I've lost track by now so I suppose that number COULD be correct...)
This is not particularly hard. The "family member of politician" potential conflict comes up in almost every administration.
Jimmy Carter's brother Billy, who famously had substance abuse issues and was an alcoholic, had an arrangement with Libya. (https://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/26/...er-at-51-troubled-brother-of-a-president.html)
George W. Bush's brother Neil had some deposition testimony in which it was pretty clear he slept with tons of prostitutes in Asian countries, and parlayed his family name into a board position with a Chinese Semi-conductor company. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...il-bush/388db316-f6b9-456e-8720-b4b2bf60a8ab/)
Bill Clinton had Roger Clinton (cocaine). Hillary's brothers got involved in tobacco lobbying. (https://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/...rge-unflattering-spotlight.html?module=inline)
Honestly, Hunter Biden doesn't register by comparison. If you really think that corporate boards don't have people with drug arrests in their seats .... I don't know what to tell you.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
Well, you're certainly welcome to believe that if it makes you feel better.
Happy birthday!
And as an addendum: I generally think the way corporate boards work is beyond moronic. Like as a general principle. You will never hear me defend the compensation or skill level of any board member as commensurate with one another.
DasJazz
Well-Known Member
Hell yeah! End of any democratic candidate presidency hopes in the upcoming election. Happy birthday indeed!
LOL, they would be in dereliction of their Constitutional duty if they DIDN'T take any action regarding a President who has violated the law and abused his power as often and as flagrantly as Trump has.
I liked what this article in Lawfare Blog had to say about it: https://www.lawfareblog.com/so-you-want-impeach-president
"Congress should focus for impeachment purposes only on matters of unacceptable presidential conduct that are provable on the basis of currently available evidence and that are thus easily presentable to the Senate for judgment. This does not mean that Trump’s conduct outside this category is wise, moral, acceptable or even, in some cases, legal. But the House must rigorously focus on the worst provable offenses undertaken as president in part because there are so many possible charges to begin with.
...
We think Congress should focus its impeachment consideration—if, indeed, it now means to conduct a formal impeachment inquiry—on five major areas, each of which could easily support an article of impeachment.
The first is obstruction of justice and abuse of law enforcement institutions and personnel.
...
the second involves his attempts to leverage the power of the presidency to cause investigation and prosecution of political opponents.
...
The third broad area Congress should focus on is the abuse of the president’s foreign policy authorities and misuse of congressionally appropriated money to induce a foreign head of state to violate the civil liberties of U.S. persons and interfere in a presidential election.
...
The fourth area for Congress to focus on in considering impeachment is the president’s efforts to obstruct or impede congressional investigations.
...
A final area Congress should examine is Trump’s lying to the American public.
...
Focusing an impeachment inquiry on these areas will be frustrating. It will mean that a great deal of maddening conduct—indeed impeachable and even criminal conduct—on the president’s part will necessarily take a back seat. But it is critical to conducting an impeachment process in a defensible and coherent fashion that makes a statement about acceptable presidential behavior. If the House is really moving to consider impeaching the president, it needs to resist the temptation to turn the impeachment process into an indiscriminate expression of any and all grievances. It must ground itself in the provable record. And it needs to make decisions about what message it wants to send about what presidential conduct a coordinate branch will brand as constitutionally intolerable in a person who swears the presidential oath of office."
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The transcript isn't the basis for the complaint. The whistle-blower is.
And as has been posted earlier White House aides don't do word for word transcripts of WH calls, they do readouts which are summaries written by people working for the President. We know Donald Trump has lied about contents of calls and is an otherwise untrustworthy person, anything he gives up willingly is worthy of suspicion.
You sound scared, Mr. Trump.
Again, I didn't say she wan't coached.
DasJazz
Well-Known Member
Not even a little, and that's what scares you.
Side note, we should definitely have an election night thread when the time comes to watch the freakout sessions that'll inevitably ensue just like in 2016. Should be good times!
That's fine. I'm such a jackass you are fit enough to disagree with me.
I agree. Whichever person wins, there will be freak outs.
This Ukraine fiasco isn't going to help Biden's candidacy, btw. He's been shaky before now, but this will bring people's attention to corruption on his part. The DNC must know this and must basically be pulling him out of the race to give Warren the nomination.
Who is the whistle-blower, btw?
Who is the whistle-blower, btw?
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Good work. You have proven that it is normally a scandal when a high-placed politician's family member is given a cushy position that they don't actually appear to deserve. I agree with your unstated conclusion that the Biden's deserve similar scrutiny.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
I'd be a lot more impressed if the whistle blower had actually been in on the call. Instead he was apparently given a second-hand impression of it, and that is the basis of impeachment proceedings. Wow.
As Joyce Alene wrote,
And specifically, it was vetted by the inspector general who determined it was credible.