The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

And then there's this. That only took about 48 hours.

https://dailycaller.com/2019/09/27/...utor-joe-biden-removed-burisma-investigation/

https://iotwreport.com/shokin-affidavit-is-damning-evidence-against-biden-and-obama-administration/

 

[sirkickyass]

This might help:
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaig...-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

A) John Solomon is the guy who keeps putting around Lutsenko's stories unquestioned, so I take his reporting with a grain of salt on Ukraine.

B ) What is the connection between Burisma and BlueStar Strategies? The one page memo doesn't mention Burisma anywhere in it, and there's no indication that's what the meeting was about. The only connection I see in the article is that Solomon refers to BlueStar as Burisma's "American lawyers." I can't independently verify that. There's one other story I can read that links the two firms, which is a New York Times article. That article, however, has some pretty glaring factual errors and doesn't explain the relationship between BlueStar and Burisma either. It also cites an earlier John Solomon article as the source for the connection. Burisma isn't listed as a client on Blue Star's company site. Blue Star isn't mentioned anywhere on Burisma's site.

The only connection that Solomon cites is that Hunter Biden is also on the board of Blue Star - which I can't find any other reference to that isn't John Solomon or citing John Solomon's May article. Blue Star's corporate documents and web page make no historical reference to Hunter in any year.

I guess my read on this is - it's ********. Solomon is implying a link because Blue Star is associated with Clinton people.

C) The memo is about characterizations of the Ukrainian interaction with a British tax invasion investigation into Burisma's founder. It's not about Shokin's performance generally.

Honestly, I don't think the article makes any sense in comparison to the documents it cites.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Anyone wanna bet $50 that Trump won't be impeached?

He just won 2020, and all you weird ****s are doing is making it easier for him.

This was never about actually impeaching Trump. It's about trying to convince the public that Trump *should* be impeached for something in time for the 2020 election cycle. But if it comes off as too weak or contrived, it will backfire.

 

[sirkickyass]

And then there's this. That only took about 48 hours.

Who do you think Dmitry Firtash is and why is Shokin being asked to provide a statement?

 

[fishonjazz]

This was never about actually impeaching Trump. It's about trying to convince the public that Trump *should* be impeached for something in time for the 2020 election cycle. But if it comes off as too weak or contrived, it will backfire.

Weird that this doesn't happen to every president then.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[sirkickyass]

As an aside: This exchange made me look at John Solomon's twitter feed. I didn't realize he was such a clown show.



I happen to know the person who wrote the Politico story about Jerry Falwell Jr. personally. He was a classmate of my ex-wife's. That Solomon thinks the real story is that a journalist wrote a story about a GOP-aligned figure using internal documents is hilarious given that he's holding himself out as an investigative reporter.

 

[Harambe]

This was never about actually impeaching Trump. It's about trying to convince the public that Trump *should* be impeached for something in time for the 2020 election cycle. But if it comes off as too weak or contrived, it will backfire.

Yes, you've got it right. Partially. This was never about impeachment. This has always been about rules and regulations; fair elections.

There was a phone call that was sketchy. There were people bitching about it. There was a WH administration response that was dubious. There was a complaint. There was a holding of the complaint.

That's not to say that there's people trying to benefit.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Who do you think Dmitry Firtash is and why is Shokin being asked to provide a statement?

Does it matter why Shokin is providing an affidavit? The affidavit is accusing Obama/Biden of corruption or being complicit with corruption in Ukraine.

Even if the allegations are questionable, they give President Trump and Bill Barr a fair reason to discuss corruption, and Biden specifically, with the new Ukrainian administration.

And to answer your question, I had to look them both up on wikipedia.

 

[Gameface]

Check this guy out.

Holy **** what a completely stupid *** rant that had nothing to do with anything.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Yes, you've got it right. Partially. This was never about impeachment. This has always been about rules and regulations; fair elections.

There was a phone call that was sketchy. There were people bitching about it. There was a WH administration response that was dubious. There was a complaint. There was a holding of the complaint.

That's not to say that there's people trying to benefit.

Well, put me in the camp that thinks this will backfire on the Dems and that Trump will get re-elected with around 310 or so electoral votes.

 

[sirkickyass]

Does it matter why Shokin is providing an affidavit? The affidavit is accusing Obama/Biden of corruption or being complicit with corruption in Ukraine.

Even if the allegations are questionable, they give President Trump and Bill Barr a fair reason to discuss corruption, and Biden specifically, with the new Ukrainian administration.

And to answer your question, I had to look them both up on wikipedia.

Can you imagine the frustration that comes with being a person who has spent years trying to understand Ukrainian politics, and have the internet suddenly awash in wild characterizations of documents related to people that people have to look up on wikipedia?

Why do you feel confident that you have a firm understanding of what happened with Shokin based upon this document?

 

[NAOS]

I see it all. It's you who picks and chooses. Lol why would I be mad at Trump and not mad at Hillary? If I really cared I'd hold all of them accountable. You on the other hand openly admitted you didn't care if Hunter broke the law. You said it plain as day. Between that post and this post you completely contradict yourself.

One of the people you mentioned is the ACTUAL President of the United States. That person has vastly more power than everyone else you mentioned. This is a very good reason to care more about Trump than the other. You twit.