The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Political Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
MARK STEYN ON IMPEACHMENT: Objection: Sad!
This time I’m the one disinclined to follow along. The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they’re doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they’re running against.
This is a joke. I gave up on it when, on the eve of the trial, the laughably named “Government Accountability Office” released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted “illegally”. Aside from the fact that that “finding” is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, “Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale.”
Read the whole thing.
MARK STEYN ON IMPEACHMENT: Objection: Sad!
This time I’m the one disinclined to follow along. The left, being not terribly imaginative, always accuse you of what they’re doing themselves. So, in this case, President Trump is charged with interfering with the 2020 election by men who have been interfering with the 2016 and 2020 elections for over three-and-a-half years now. Which is why we have the preposterous spectacle of four Democrat presidential candidates preparing to vote to remove from office the guy they’re running against.
This is a joke. I gave up on it when, on the eve of the trial, the laughably named “Government Accountability Office” released its supposedly entirely separate conclusion that Trump had acted “illegally”. Aside from the fact that that “finding” is flat out wrong, I wonder whether the permanent bureaucracy ever thinks, “Gee, maybe we should be a little more subtle about putting our Deep State thumbs on the scale.”
Read the whole thing.
Political Jazz Fan
Well-Known Member
Jerry Nadler Admits He’s Got No Impeachment Case
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/01/23/jerry-nadler-admits-hes-got-no-case/
https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2020/01/23/jerry-nadler-admits-hes-got-no-case/
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Yes, you are correct, you are mis-remembering. This is what Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations said while under oath:
And of course Trump denied that there was a quid pro quo to Sondland. They both probably felt like Taylor was saving texts. It doesn't mean that there wasn't an quid pro quo. Sondland testified to the truthfulness that he received the described text but Sondland testified under Oath that the text wasn't truthful. He even admitted that there was a clear quid pro quo. I mean, we have Trump's actions to prove that:
- Sending Rudy and working with Lev Parnas.
- Pressuring President Poroshenko to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.
- Defaming Marie Yovanovitch with John Solomon and Rudy and removing her because she wasn't corrupt.
- Pressuring President Zeleksky to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens. "Donald, I need the desperately needed anti-tank javelins." "Zelensky, of course, do me a favor though..." What else do you need? If you're expecting Donald to actually use quid pro quo, then you're going to be sorely mistaken.
- Halting the aid so abruptly that even the Republican controlled Senate began to investigate why.
- DOJ halting the whistleblower complaint.
- Smearing witnesses like Vindman.
- Attempting to out the whistleblower.
- Admitting on the south lawn that he wanted even China to investigate his political opponent.
- Trump's obstruction of justice. If he's really so innocent, why isn't her permitting his cabinet to speak?
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Based on what you just posted I don't feel that I mis-remembered at all. He made some bombshell claims which were almost completely neutered on cross-examination. He never presented any evidence of a quid pro quo or of being told that the investigation was tied to the aid. In the end it simply seemed to be a sense that he had. His sense might have been correct, but he did not have actual evidence to back it up. As a matter of fact, his actual evidence pointed in the opposite direction.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
The media you consume really sucks. You really need to trust in better sources that actually inform. He wasn't claiming that they didn't know anything. You're ripping a quote out of context from the argument he was making.
Your media source is lying to you.
Let me give you some free advice, if you have to lie to "prove" that your side is innocent, then your side is guilty.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen...updates-democrats-make-case/story?id=68448840
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Of course Trump denied that there was a quid pro quo to Sondland. Sondland testified to the truthfulness that he received such a text from Trump. But Sondland admitted that there was a clear quid pro quo; Trump lied. His text was a lie. Are we clear on that?
His entire testimony talked about how he and Rudy were working to compel Ukraine into announcing an investigation on Biden. Sondland provided testimony that Trump didn't care about corruption in Ukraine.
As far as evidence, what evidence exonerates Trump?
- Sending Rudy and working with Lev Parnas.
- Pressuring President Poroshenko to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens.
- Defaming Marie Yovanovitch with John Solomon and Rudy and removing her because she wasn't corrupt.
- Pressuring President Zeleksky to announce publicly an investigation into the Bidens. "Donald, I need the desperately needed anti-tank javelins." "Zelensky, of course, do me a favor though..." What else do you need? If you're expecting Donald to actually use quid pro quo, then you're going to be sorely mistaken.
- Halting the aid so abruptly that even the Republican controlled Senate began to investigate why.
- DOJ halting the whistleblower complaint.
- Smearing witnesses like Vindman.
- Attempting to out the whistleblower.
- Bolton distancing himself from "the drug deal that Rudy is cooking up."
- Bolton sending his aid to lawyers over this corrupt quid pro quo.
- Admitting on the south lawn that he wanted even China to investigate his political opponent.
- Trump's obstruction of justice. If he's really so innocent, why isn't her permitting his cabinet to speak?
Last edited:
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
One poster made the claim that no direct testimony has implicated Trump. Another one said that was incorrect because he had revised his testimony. I said that the revised testimony was severely weakened on cross-examination. All of that is true. I'm sorry that it's so upsetting to you.
Your bulleted list is full of all sorts of opinion on your part. I am not going to bother trying to prove that Trump should be exonerated based on your version of the facts. I will say that I find it hysterical that you believe he was treated fairly by the House. We are watching partisan politics at its finest. It should surprise no-one that a far left Trump hater like yourself is convinced of his guilt. You were convinced of that on the day he was elected (just needed to find a crime).
Red
Well-Known Member
Well, my understanding was that Sondland testified on Oct. 17 that Trump told him over the phone that there was "no quid pro quo". It was made clear that this was conveyed to Sondland by Trump soon after Trump found out a whistleblower had reported his concerns over the call, so I have reason to be suspicious of Trump's claim given that timing, but you may not share my suspicions, of course. But, yes, "no quid pro quo" is what Sondland said Trump told him, and at both times Sondland testified. Again, I don't believe Trump, if only because he appears to be a liar almost by nature(my judgement). I suspect he was trying to cover his arse at that point. But, yes, Trump said that, according to Sondland.
But it's the Nov. 20th testimony by Sondland that seemed to make clear that there was a quid pro quo. He did at that time state as much, and that "everybody was in the loop". I don't know why everybody would not include Trump, but, again, you may disagree.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...was-quid-pro-quo-gordon-sondland-says-testim/
"Sondland testified that the arrangement negotiated with Ukraine constituted a quid pro quo.
"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo?’" Sondland said in his statement. "As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
------------------------
So, from what I've learned so far, there was a quid pro quo. Trump stating over the phone to Sondland that there was "no quid pro quo", and repeated since many, many times by Trump, publicly, does not mean Trump was being truthful. From all I've learned, too much evidence and House testimony points exactly to the existence of a quid pro quo. You, Heathme, and anyone else are certainly free to believe the president instead, and not the testimony and evidence that was presented. With additional evidence since, such as the documents provided by Parnas. If you wish to believe the president was being truthful with his "no quid pro quo" mantra, by all means. I suspect Sondland was more forthright about the existence of a quid pro quo in his later testimony.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Now you're not being rational here. The bulleted list isn't opinion. It's factual.
It's verifiable that Trump halted the aid.
It's verifiable that he had Ambassador Marie Yovanovich ousted to conduct this pressure campaign.
It's verifiable that he asked for a favor.
It's verifiable that this entire scheme was to smear his political opponent.
It's verifiable that Bolton attempted to distance himself from this.
It's verifiable that the DOJ attempted to smother the whistleblower complaint in its infancy.
it's verifiable that Trump has attempted to smear and intimidate the whistleblower and those who testified in the impeachment hearings.
What about the bulleted list isn't verifiable evidence? What about it is opinion?
Careful now, your next post is going to be telling.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
As I've said before, I guess it comes down to where we stand politically. I have seen case after case that appeared, to me, cut and dried, and yet I'm told that legally the dots cannot be connected. For example, it looks obvious to me that Hunter Biden was being paid for his father's political influence (I can see no other asset that he could possibly have been selling for that price), it seems abundantly clear to me that Hillary was using a private server in order to hide certain communications from the US Government (no other explanation for her actions makes any sense), etc. But for some reason the dots cannot be connected and therefore nothing is done about these crimes.
In the case of Trump's impeachment, all of the key players on the accusation side have been openly dreaming about finding something to pin on him since before he was elected. This includes a large percentage of the congressmen who voted for impeachment, the supposed whistle blower, his lawyer, and many more (including large swaths of the media who are reporting on it). All of these same people have been going bananas over other (now failed) attempts to remove Trump from office. In other words, they have used up all of their credibility and then some. There are many people in this country who are sick and tired of the constant harassment of the president. It is not at all difficult for them to understand why the president is uncooperative with their endless efforts to obstruct his agenda. These people do not agree with you that Trump is a threat to our republic and they believe the anti-Trump crowd ought to stop with their madness and put up a good alternative in the next election. I am in agreement with these people on all of the above.
Unlike many of them I would love to see better candidates (on both sides). I know that I could never vote for Sanders or Warren. I probably wouldn't vote for Biden or Mayor Pete. I think I could be convinced to vote for Klobochar (though I need to learn more). I assure you that I would never vote for Trump because even though I agree with a large percentage of his politics, I do not like the way he handles himself. My vote is most likely for a third party candidate.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You've fixed your list somewhat by leaving some of your previous suppositions off, but the motivation for the second point is not as clear as you're suggesting, there is no problem asking for a favor that benefits our country, the use of "scheme" is meant to incite an opinion that he was up to something nefarious, it is not at all clear that smearing an opponent was his motivation, etc. You are so ingrained in many of your suppositions that you see them as facts. It's clear that we don't see eye to eye on very much of this at all.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
The amount of delusion needed to actually believe this is staggering.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Not compared to the amount of delusion it takes to believe that Hunter was being paid for anything other than his father's influence.
Red
Well-Known Member
And I understand that. I have ALWAYS understood that. Long ago, a few years ago now, you suggested I start a thread to examine the differences between how liberals see the world, and how conservatives see the world. Which I did, but I forget how the conversation went. Not far, as I recall.
But, my point is I have close friends, highly intelligent friends, who support Trump. My closest friend is a conservative. Because he believes I am an intelligent man, he is absolutely incredulous that I feel the way I do. It's like "but you're a real smart guy; I don't get it". (In so many words, not an exact quote, but that was the gist of how he reacted when I first told him Trump was a demagogue). I could say the very same thing to him. "My dear friend, you are an intelligent and thoughtful man. How can you support Trump?" Without actually spelling it out, we simply decided to avoid politics, and stick to our shared interests. One thing I learned is that our differences are not rooted in intelligence, or education. We're both highly educated.
I believe it comes down to how people view the world. And we need to examine that basic fact very closely, and understand how we have let it get to such a dire state of extreme divisiveness.
I also believe, and have said as much many times in the Trump threads, that, sooner or later this impasse has got to end. But I'm not optimistic in the short term. Or the long term at the moment.
Any time I mention Trump at all, my wife takes it as her cue to bring up Hillary, who she hates. So I am in the thick of it where our partisan "civil war" is concerned. So, I take this as a test for me. I must be tolerant. I must understand we are all citizens of the same nation. I am married to someone who does not understand what all the Trump hate is all about. This has got to be a test; I hope I pass. Love trumps hate.
You may not realize it, because I make clear how I feel about Trump, but I spend a great deal of time trying to fathom these differences. I have also suggested to you, a few times, that we are dealing with competing narratives. And I do believe they both cannot be true. I think the narrative I subscribe to is the one where truth lies. I think eventually that will be born out. I expect you to disagree and subscribe to the president's narrative. To the narrative presented by Fox. I don't mean to make your position simplistic when I say that. I know you have said you don't like some of Trump's personal qualities.
Last edited:
Red
Well-Known Member
I keep coming back to this thought. This is my lodestar.
olden_undercover
Well-Known Member
So let's all agree that Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma under that pretense, for the sake of dialog. It seems perfectly plausible, honestly. A lot of us think pro-Trump folks are falling for some twisty words on the part of Trump & Co., though: That he was on some noble quest to bring down corruption by proving Hunter Biden was employed by Burisma for political purposes, and THAT was his primary and only motivation. There is ample evidence, including statements by witnesses, that there was never a sincere attempt to get Ukraine to actually conduct an investigation at all-- Trump just wanted Ukraine to ANNOUNCE an investigation. And if you consider that, and then ask yourself what Trump's motive could have possibly been, you only land in one place: He wanted to damage Biden politically. If you can present a compelling reason why the president of the United States should otherwise personally involve himself in this sort of issue, to the extent he bypassed regular government channels and used his own personal attorney and cronies to clandestinely liaise between himself and the Ukrainian government, please do so. That's the basis of this entire investigation.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
There's certainly a middle ground here, which is that they hired him for his name, to add a veneer of credibility to their struggling brand.
Of course that doesn't mean that Joe Biden himself had anything to do with it, and no evidence suggests he did.
That said, I don't think anyone should be trading on the name of their politician parents. It would be really cool if that standard was universal, and the fact that Trump has is own family working in his white house and on his campaign while they do business overseas really blows the whole narrative of Trump being an anti corruption crusader into smithereens.