I'm sorry I thought you were talking about the theory that Ukraine interfered in our elections and not Russia. What exactly are you talking about.
Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
That there was an extreme level of corruption in ukraine that diverted aid away from where it was intended to go. Ukraine as a state didnt interfere with our elections but russian agents in ukraine may have. 7 billion dollars worth of aid from several countries didnt go to where it was supposed to go, including 1.8 billion of our dollars.
That sounds like the MAGA starter kit. Just add Fox News, wrap around sunglasses, and a truck with an "all lives matter" sticker.
Provide one shred of evidence that Biden acted with corrupt intent.Overwhelming evidence by US Officials employed at the time that he was executing official US policy. A coincidence, without something else, may just be a coincidence.
It legitimately does not matter. If people are still so goddamn stupid that they were supporting Trump before this came out, do you think they will stop and think "huh, I should use this new information to reevaluate my position"?
Of course not.
These idiots will double down and just throw personal attacks at you for daring to disrupt their preconceived notions of how the world works. They are traitors the lot of them.
I know these chuds will twist and turn their way into thinking it's ok for Trump to withhold aid. It'll be the democrats fault for not waiting for the legal system to force Bolton to testify etc etc.
I'm more just excited for the rest of America to see their senator cover this up and then rock solid evidence to keep coming out. There's a shit ton of swing states in the Senate this year. I still maintain that democrats knew republicans would cover it up but that republican senators would be hurt.
So why didnt she ask the Congress to call him in the first place? Nevermind, she's 10 years past the age that should be allowed to vote so obviously she's mentally incapacitated.
But it's ok to have it drawn out for 2 years now? They insist that the Senate subpoena Bolton and Mulvaney which will take just as long, the only difference is now the clock starts in February instead of back in October.
Or maybe, just maybe, the president and his staff could cooperate? It is kind of amazing that everyone is trying to blame congress for the lack of witnesses and documents, and not the White House which has refused to cooperate at all with this process, or the senate who obviously isn't going to actually do their jobs.
Last edited:
I see that SHook Chicken has abandoned his insane conspiracy theory post claiming that the President ordered a hit on an Ambassador, to come over here to again change the title to reflect whatever irrelevant tidbit that the NYT and HuffPo spoonfeed to him as RELEVANT!
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
Meanwhile, George Soros and Hillary Clinton are publicly claiming that Facebook is going all-in to re-elect Trump, and Adam DBag Schiff is now claiming that Trump must be impeached because he already knows that the 2020 vote will be rigged and stolen.
Democrats have lost their minds. They've been reduced to insanity since yet another attempt to take Trump down is blowing up in their face and it's pretty clear that no feckless loser they have running in the primary will win in November either. Hilarious.
Meanwhile, George Soros and Hillary Clinton are publicly claiming that Facebook is going all-in to re-elect Trump, and Adam DBag Schiff is now claiming that Trump must be impeached because he already knows that the 2020 vote will be rigged and stolen.
Democrats have lost their minds. They've been reduced to insanity since yet another attempt to take Trump down is blowing up in their face and it's pretty clear that no feckless loser they have running in the primary will win in November either. Hilarious.
That's 100% up to the Senate. If the GOP Senate said that any effort to fight an impeachment subpoena issued by the Senate and signed by the Chief Justice, would result in an immediate vote to remove on the obstruction article - then the subpoena gets honored.
Based on judicial precedent to this point, it strongly suggests that POTUS has zero executive privilege in impeachment anyway. I think Republicans in the Senate are deathly afraid of this confrontation specifically because of this. They expect Trump to fight, and they'll have to undermine the power of the Senate to support his position. But if they take a strong stance in support of the Senate, they'd effectively be arguing for the obstruction article. They don't want to be in that position.
If they just choose not to have witnesses, then it looks like they still hold the power because they made the decision - not Trump.
I'm not going to say FB is all-in for Trump. But think about it from FB's position - Warren and Bernie are openly talking about breaking up FB. Meanwhile, Trump's justice department has been floating the "conservatives are being censored" position and threatening action. FB has three choices.
- Be like twitter and put a moratorium on political advertising until we get disinformation and 1st amendment issues sorted out.
- Regress their political advertising platform to be more like TV - everyone in a certain zipcode sees the same ads (no micro-targetting)
- Do what Trump's campaign wants and maintain the status-quo.
I don't think FB wants Trump to win. But I do think their best strategy (to avoid anti-trust or other DOJ action) is to keep Trump happy in case he does win. Thus I think they're making decisions that hurt American Democracy, which is ultimately going to justify the anti-trust action I expect we'll see if Trump loses.
Serious question:
How can executive privilege be claimed on the contents of a book that is slated for public release in 6 weeks?
If it's ok for me to buy the book why can't the Senate talk about the book?
How can executive privilege be claimed on the contents of a book that is slated for public release in 6 weeks?
If it's ok for me to buy the book why can't the Senate talk about the book?
just checking in to say that trump is still the president. hes going to be president tomorrow. hes going to be president next month and the month after that. oh and he has a really good shot of being a 2 term president. have a nice day. 
Executive privilege isn't necessarily about protecting or concealing information, it's also about separation of powers. If we just go with the idea of anything the executive branch does is subject to executive privilege then we have a king. If we flip that, and everything is subject to congress then we have a parliamentary system. Regardless of whether trump is guilty or not, this is a complicated issue because of the constitution.
just checking in to say that trump is still the president. hes going to be president tomorrow. hes going to be president next month and the month after that. oh and he has a really good shot of being a 2 term president. have a nice day.
Your posts have moved beyond comedy, to being painful.
Good job not commenting on anything relevant, and completely ignoring facts and reality.
Racist piece of shit pathetic excuse for a parent.
Ken Starr is up there saying impeachment is wrong and is too politically disruptive without bipartisan support.
Yes, that Ken Starr.
Yes, that Ken Starr.
"Meritless" is possibly the difference. If trump were to invoke executive privilege because Congress was investigating him having an affair that would be way different than if he were to invoke executive privilege based on public funds and/or national security. I can't speak for Starr and what his thought process is on this but it could be a legitimate constitutional difference.
It's really hard to compare this impeachment with clinton because they are completely different scenarios. Comparing it to Nixon is a much better corollary.
By using this flimsy Democratic bullshit POV, then Obama should have been impeached the minute that he and his cronies weaponized the IRS to attack conservative groups. Abuse of power! Using governmental powers to influence politics and future elections for himself!
That's the issue here, this impeachment being based on such low standards and bullshit will simply assure that every future President is impeached. The left has gone to the lowest bar and beyond multiple times now just to set new shitty precedent.
That's the issue here, this impeachment being based on such low standards and bullshit will simply assure that every future President is impeached. The left has gone to the lowest bar and beyond multiple times now just to set new shitty precedent.
No, whataboutism is when you ignore something your party does wrong and point to something the other party did as a means of justification. How could this be whataboutism?
This is me laughing that Ken Starr is arguing against what Ken Starr is famous for.
Low standards and bullshit? I can tell you're very educated on the topic. Please elaborate on what is bullshit about the articles of abuse of power and obstruction of congress.
If Obama directed the IRS to deny tax exempt status to conservative political groups then it would be impeachable 100%
If the state department withheld funds for Ukraine without Trump's knowledge then I wouldn't support impeaching Trump.
Neither of those things happened though. Obama didn't direct the IRS to specially do anything and liberal groups were under increased scrutiny as well, just to a lesser extent.
Trump was personally involved in the withholding of aid in an attempt to harm a political opponent using US taxpayer money as leverage.
Dershowitz was pretty good today, very well versed in history and the founders. I liked it when he listed off all of the presidents that have been accused of abuse of power and by that standard about 3/4ths of them could have also been impeached.
Pam Bondi is not a good speaker but she laid out in great detail the Biden/Burisma situation. I'm willing to bet that both Bidens are probably nervous right now and that Joe has had some words with Jr. Its almost a lock that this impeachment is going to include new witnesses and they're both going to be called.
Bottom line, is if there was any reason to suspect corruption by Joe Biden, forcing the issue was Trumps job a Prez. When Joe is on tape bragging about, threatening Ukraine to withhold money to get a prosecutor fired, that was looking into the company that was paying his good for nothing kid 90k a month, there is plenty of reason to suspect corruption. It is not an impeachable offense.
And Obstruction of congress is not impeachable either. The Exe branch does not have to give up executive privilege just because congress wants him to.
And Obstruction of congress is not impeachable either. The Exe branch does not have to give up executive privilege just because congress wants him to.
via facebook group unbiased america
BREAKING NEWS: SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN) SAYS HE WILL NOT VOTE FOR MORE WITNESSES, MEANING ACQUITTAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IS ALL BUT ASSURED
by Kevin Ryan
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) says he has heard enough, and does not believe additional witnesses would change the fact that the articles of impeachment do not warrant removal of the president.
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander said in a statement.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) says she will vote for additional witnesses. Collins is in a competitive race for re-election this fall. She says each side should be able to call the same number of witnesses. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) also says he would like to hear from John Bolton.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not yet decided on witnesses. But, since Senate Democrats need four Republicans to join them to prevail on the witness vote, and since it seems the most they can get is three (if Murkowski votes yes), it now appears all but certain that there will be no further witnesses, and President Trump will be acquitted.
The Senate will hold the vote on witnesses Friday afternoon and could move to acquit Trump from the impeachment charges later that night.
SOURCE: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/republicans-confident-defeat-witness-vote-trial-109603
BREAKING NEWS: SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN) SAYS HE WILL NOT VOTE FOR MORE WITNESSES, MEANING ACQUITTAL OF PRESIDENT TRUMP WITHOUT ADDITIONAL WITNESSES IS ALL BUT ASSURED
by Kevin Ryan
Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) says he has heard enough, and does not believe additional witnesses would change the fact that the articles of impeachment do not warrant removal of the president.
"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander said in a statement.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) says she will vote for additional witnesses. Collins is in a competitive race for re-election this fall. She says each side should be able to call the same number of witnesses. Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) also says he would like to hear from John Bolton.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has not yet decided on witnesses. But, since Senate Democrats need four Republicans to join them to prevail on the witness vote, and since it seems the most they can get is three (if Murkowski votes yes), it now appears all but certain that there will be no further witnesses, and President Trump will be acquitted.
The Senate will hold the vote on witnesses Friday afternoon and could move to acquit Trump from the impeachment charges later that night.
SOURCE: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/republicans-confident-defeat-witness-vote-trial-109603
Hopefully they put an end to this and then call an inquiry into the Burisma deal.
Well they honestly have every reason to do so, particularly with the house managers bringing it up 400 times. We have dozens of witnesses that have expressed concern about what was going on, 2 journalists that have covered it extensively, and a former federal prosecutor that has evidence that should be looked at.
Latest posts
-
-
🚨 Conference Realignment Mega Thread: Clemson sues the ACC 🚨- Latest: KnightDiver21
-
-
