Zombie
Well-Known Member
The arguments Trump's team are making to defend him are more disturbing than the conduct he's being impeached for tbh.
Last edited:
The official "let's impeach Trump" thread
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
But Republican Senators shouldn’t act as Trump’s defense attorneys. Empowering a president to do anything under the laughable excuses they’re making, is setting an unbelievably terrible precedent. Just because Donald’s defense attorneys are making these claims doesn’t mean that Republicans should buy them.
There’s no point in having impeachment anymore if all a president needs to do is hold onto 35 senators to act as meat shields to beat high crimes and misdemeanors. Hell, what’s the point of having a Congress anymore?
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
I realized why I had him blocked. Like he’s done with Kicky, he asks questions, gets answers he doesn’t like, and then whines about no one answering his questions. I’ve stated before that I watch Hannity. Never have I denied it. But he’ll keep arguing otherwise because he isn’t a rational person.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Yep. That’s it.
In terms of the three conditions:
1) Obama was asking Russia to be patient, but was not asking for any specific action. Trump asked for an announcement to hurt a political opponent. Asking for something specific is clearly worse than asking for nothing.
2) No other US citizen was impacted by Obama's request. Trump was specifically targeting a US citizen.
3) I have seen no case made that the agreement we came to with Russia would have been any different before or after the election, so there is no basis to claim that US interests were threatened. Had Trump's withholding of funds not been called out, Ukraine would be in a much more precarious position today.
So, a false equivalence on all three points.
I'm loving the argument that "We do quid pro quo all the time in diplomacy."
It's like they think "quid pro quo" is the base of the accusation, like simply the act of asking for something in exchange for something else, as if that is what we're saying was wrong.
No!
A President asking for a quid pro quo, on one side holding up foreign aid that wasn't his to withould in exchange for a personal favor and one that was specifically meant to hurt his political rival, that's the issue.
It is about a president using things that aren't his but are intended to help an ally defend themselves against an aggressive threat in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a front-running Presidential candidate.
It's so weird people don't just see that for what it is.
It's like they think "quid pro quo" is the base of the accusation, like simply the act of asking for something in exchange for something else, as if that is what we're saying was wrong.
No!
A President asking for a quid pro quo, on one side holding up foreign aid that wasn't his to withould in exchange for a personal favor and one that was specifically meant to hurt his political rival, that's the issue.
It is about a president using things that aren't his but are intended to help an ally defend themselves against an aggressive threat in exchange for an announcement of an investigation into a front-running Presidential candidate.
It's so weird people don't just see that for what it is.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Trump was running two foreign policies. The official one, was publicly known and based on Congressional arrangements to aid Ukraine. Another in the shadow, based on helping Donald Trump’s election by using Congressionally passed foreign aid as leverage against Ukraine.
The “we do quid pro quo all the time” argument is just silly. Again, why have a Congress if the president can decide in shadow who gets aid and when? And I agree, it’s weird how many people don’t understand this.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
mans the deficit. We all know that if a Democrat wins this November, that next January the Tea Party fiscal Hawks will come back demanding huge cuts to Medicare and social security.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Well one thing I do know is that he is incorrect about me watching Hannity. (I also know that despite the fact that he claims I'm blocked he seems to read all of my messages.) It's cute the various ways he finds to respond, and it's interesting that he does not choose to respond to questions I ask like the one about Trump's attorney who applied the House Manager's arguments to Obama.
Really.
Repeating the same lie thousands of times, inundating the public with media lies, is not progressive, in the real original meaning of the word, from it's Latin roots meaning forward movement. Perhaps you are not interested in looking closely at your sources or the facts.
I think Mark Levin found a pretty good bit today, relative to (in my opinion, CFR MIC pro-American dominance foreign policy advocate) John Bolton's "leaked" Book claims, a sound (and I think) TV clip where in an interview circa late August, a month after the Ukraine call and about three weeks before his resignation/ouster rumored over Trump's not going to war with Turkey, or maybe some Korean issues..... or over withdrawals of troops from some damn hell hole or another...….
Bolton was in total assurance that the Ukraine calls were wonderful, excellent things entirely appropriate to the subject, on all three major impeachment issues.
OB, when "your" media sources just absolute refused to tell the truth or report objective facts, and/or your political cause needs to dodge them, that's a clear signal to check your bearings.
Kennedy's 1984 assurances to Putin were part of his actual invitation to the Kremlin to help set up circumstances that would impair Reagan's campaign and/or re-election efforts, exactly what Hillary and dthe DNC, and some ******* chiefs of the FBI, CIA, DOJ and the FISA court did against Trump in 2016, It is pretty clear that Obama, in setting up his post-Presidency palace, was intended to facilitate his management of his confederates in the bureaucracy and Congress----and indeed, in the White House staff as well---- after purportedly turning the office of the Presidency over to Trump.
When I find another reason for the organized efforts of the Resistance, I'll let you know, but I am not going to give evidence if I have it. I give it to you as a signal. Is this Schiff's Show? I keep seeing long-playing dramas with the same goal of indoctrinating/ inundating the public, with Resistance propaganda.
Obama clearly coordinated his campaigns with Kremlin support. Birds of a feather, bro. That is what globalism is all about.