The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
This looks like campaign finance regulation. Are you saying that this is somehow relevant to trying to impeach Trump?
I thought you wanted to accuse Trump of blackmailing Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. Or, has that idea already fizzled out.
And what is the other thing you're saying I called a "fallacy"?
Last edited:
I mean, Shokin's claim that there were never complaints about his performance before Biden got involved is just crazy. There's photos of protests, all from Ukrainians, specifically about him some six months before Biden's involvement.
Shokin was one of the least popular people in the country in Fall of 2015 through spring of 2016. Acting like he was doing a recognized good job until the Americans came in and took it from him is a truly laughable statement.
The person he's swearing a statement on behalf of, Firtash, is a Yanukovych administration figure - the same guy that is now living in exile in Southern Russia because he triggered a revolution in the country in 2014. This is one of the pro-Russia forces on the outs in Ukraine standing up for their own.
In summary, Shokin is not a reliable narrator when he says that everything relating to his job in Ukraine was fine until Biden was involved.
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
20-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
2025 Award Winner
I don't thriller has the power to impeach. I think it's some pelosi chick or Congress or something
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app
Trump doesn't need a defense of any kind unless a real and credible charge emerges. So far, we have a phone transcript with Trump and Zelenskyy discussing corruption and an anonymous whistle-blower raising concerns based on 2nd and 3rd-hand conversations. If the impeachment process gets to the point where there are articles of impeachment and a clear cause of action, then Trump can think about defense. But so far, the Dems are swinging in all directions, seeing if they've got a noodle that might stick. Adam Schiff's theatrical performance yesterday was a step backward.
You'd better let him know. He'll be disappointed to hear that.
Actually, it's supposed to be the entire House voting as a starting point, but for some reason the vote is being held off.
idestroyedthetoilet
Well-Known Member
Now you're going in circles. The FEC's interpretation of a definition 1) isn't a definition itself, and 2) has no legally binding consequences. This is the FEC showing how they will choose to use their enforcement discretion. A judge will ultimately decide if challenged, if a non-arbitrary definition isn't adopted first. And then that will likely be challenged too.
Zombie
Well-Known Member
It's pretty amusing watching you lean so heavily on the "hearsay" aspect of the whistleblowers complaint after it was confirmed to be accurate by Donald Trump's release of the memo, and, you keep leaving this part out even though I know you are aware of it, the claims were investigated by the inspector general and found to be credible.
Is there some reason to doubt that the IGs word on this?
JazzyFresh
Banned
Lol this is all too familiar.
Just because the IG thinks the whistle-blower complaint is credible and forwards it to the DNI doesn't mean that the IG has reviewed evidence or conducted an investigation. The IG knows little to nothing about Trump's interactions with Ukraine or the DOJ's ongoing investigations. He's just taking the allegations seriously enough to register the complaint with the DNI.
The complaint itself is referring to the phone call with Zelenskyy that the whistleblower wasn't party to, and the transcript has been released to the public. The complaint also relies on second and third-hand conversations and tries to create a context by quoting mainstream media articles from months ago. It's formally written, but the evidence is soft.
Also, why don't you tell me what you think has been 'confirmed' by the call transcript?