A belief in a 'Deep State Conspiracy' is the only possible way that good people who remain Trump defenders can somehow ignore the corruption and lack of any morals in this WH.
Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction
- Thread starter fried-chicken
- Start date
Do you have this same level of faith in everyone, or just people that work for the federal government? I seem to remember you being critical of the state dept giving Halliburton the Iraq contract and their support of Blackwater. I also remember you claiming that Comey was acting in a political manner when he announced the investigation into Hillary was ongoing.
So are govt employees always good, or are they only good when they match your bias?
It isn't about having faith in anyone, you can certainly question anyone in our government. But Adam Schiff is the head of a committee with subpoena power, so it just seems odd that you seem to think it is a big mystery how he got the records.
He has subpoena power in certain circumstances, this not being one of them. According to CNN he didn't file the subpoena. The question is how he received it, but you once again have changed the subject because you can't deal with anything that challenges your confirmation bias. I made no claims of guilt or innocence from anyone, but since I produce questions you have become uncomfortable and need to change the narrative.
It is one of them, which his how he got the records. I haven't changed the subject to anything, what are you even talking about? Guilt or innocence? I don't know what you are talking about dude I never referenced guilt or innocence. But anyway, I should have know it was a mistake to try and have a conversation with you. Just believe in your deep state conspiracy theories and have a good rest of your day, nut job.
Seeing immoral, unethical, and illegal actions on the part of this administration is 'bias'?
Yeah, this is really a media and Hollywood thing. God forbid an entire political party looks the other way at Trump's crimes and corruption.
Agree, lets apply to they S.O.B. they fired the guy looking into corruption and the business that was paying my son 80k per month for a job he was unqualified to do. Hillary's Emails, Destroying evidence, and working with a British agent to get dirt from Russian agents on here opponent in the 2016 election. Goose calling out the gander. I don't want to stop Trump investigations, run them through to the end, but quit turning a blind eye on the other party as well.
1. Trump's kids get a salary and unlimited perks for jobs they aren't qualified to do
2. Hillary's emails have been investigated and no one was charged. Get over it.
3. We'll see where this one goes. Seems like a nothingburger so far.
They didn't fire the guy for looking into corruption, the guy was fired because he wasn't looking into corruption. And pretty much everything you said was investigated.
The Deep State Conspiracy is also why we aren't in the NY6 this year.
i just told you why some republicans look the other way for things trump does sometimes, but you glossed right over it.Yeah, this is really a media and Hollywood thing. God forbid an entire political party looks the other way at Trump's crimes and corruption.
No one is going to convince me that our board conservatives are oblivious to the immorality and the blatantly illegal sh*t going on in this WH.
No One. Not a single Congressional Republican has attempted to defend Trump's sh*t. Instead they play "well whattabout?" games by jumping at the 2016 election and Biden conspiracy crap that our intelligence community has universally declared to be Russian counterintelligence efforts to lay blame on the Ukrainians. And because it gives the WH and Congressional Republicans an out, they run to it like hungry mice chasing cheese.
It's literally mind-boggling to watch the once proud, Anti-Communist Party of Ronald Reagan now being played by Vladimir Putin as Useful Idiots.
No One. Not a single Congressional Republican has attempted to defend Trump's sh*t. Instead they play "well whattabout?" games by jumping at the 2016 election and Biden conspiracy crap that our intelligence community has universally declared to be Russian counterintelligence efforts to lay blame on the Ukrainians. And because it gives the WH and Congressional Republicans an out, they run to it like hungry mice chasing cheese.
It's literally mind-boggling to watch the once proud, Anti-Communist Party of Ronald Reagan now being played by Vladimir Putin as Useful Idiots.
Its because of taxes. What else has Trump offered republicans? They traded their values so the owner of the company they work for could afford more steak while they sit under the table like a dog waiting for scraps that aren't coming.
All his other bullshit they are willing to play along with but let's be real, they know he's a scum bag and that he's almost assuredly guilty of what he's accused of, everyone in America knows that. Their support for him is extremely short sighted. He's making it unconscionable to vote Republican in many parts of the country. If you don't believe that's true, check the polls and election results since 2016.
They know what's going on. They just choose not to care.
Back in my Republican days, I supported Clinton's impeachment. Of course, looking back now, it's piddily compared to all the 'in your face' corruption we've seen from Trump. But my rationale was that we'd fire most people in a nano-second for what Clinton did with Lewinsky, but the President should be off-limits?
But now the same people who were wringing their hands about Clinton back in the day apparently don't give a sh*t anymore about the President's lack of any moral compass as long as he's their party's guy.
Nobody is playing the "whataboutism" card as a defense against criminal activity.
What do you call the supposed Ukraine interference in the US election?
What about the supposed Hunter and Joe Biden 'quid-pro-quo'?
What about Adam Schiff being the secret coordinator of the whistleblower report?
What about the Steele dossier?
EVERYTHING from the Republicans about the impeachment inquiry has been 'whataboutism' because the testimony against Trump has been so damning.
here is a hint for the progressive liberals in here, i actually want the dems in the house to vote for impeachment. i want this process to go to the senate. if you thought it has been a circus this far, you havent seen anything yet.
i dont really like mitch mcconnell, but hes a career politician that 100% knows how to play the game. i think the democrats have truly under estimated his plans for the up coming senate trials. he gets to write the rules and do whatever he wants. that should be a scary thought for the dems.
i cant wait to see how the vote turns out. im hoping they vote to proceed to the senate.
i dont really like mitch mcconnell, but hes a career politician that 100% knows how to play the game. i think the democrats have truly under estimated his plans for the up coming senate trials. he gets to write the rules and do whatever he wants. that should be a scary thought for the dems.
i cant wait to see how the vote turns out. im hoping they vote to proceed to the senate.
It will likely go to the senate, and don't worry, nobody expects Mitch McConnell and Republicans to actually do their jobs. We know they are partisan hacks who are terrified of challenging Trump.
Last edited:
Yeah, he knows how to "play the game" alright.
God forbid that the U.S. Senate takes the impeachment of the President seriously.
Rep Collins' opening statement was perfect. Summarizes exactly what a partisan political waste of time this is.
When you look at the facts — not the presumptions, feelings and hearsay on display at the Intelligence Committee — there are several facts all witnesses agree upon.
First, President Donald Trump is generally skeptical of foreign aid. America has long been the world’s bank, bailing out troubled countries even when they criticize us. Central to this inquiry is a policy disagreement — a longstanding Republican/Democrat disagreement. If we polled my friends on the Agriculture Committee, Republicans would tell you they support giving commodities to foreign countries as opposed to cold hard cash. Democrats, as in the Obama Administration, prefer to give foreign countries cash. Under this rubric, with regard to Ukraine, it makes sense that President Trump’s administration would endorse providing Javelins, the anti-tank weapons, over difficult-to-track and easy-to-steal cash.
Second, witnesses also agreed that President Trump had a deeply held belief that Ukraine is a corrupt country. The evidence shows this is not only reasonable, but accurate. We are talking about massive corruption where government officials are also oligarchs, controlling business and lining their pockets with Ukrainian — and American — taxpayer dollars.
Third, zero witnesses identified a crime here. In fact, as the AP pointed out in a November 21 piece, zero witnesses personally attested the president conditioned aid on an announcement of investigations or actual investigations being conducted.
Mr. Ratcliffe asked Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent if “they could assert evidence of an impeachable offense.” Neither witness had any such evidence. Ambassador Yovanovich was asked if she had evidence of the president soliciting or accepting a bribe and she said no. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams also said they had not used the word “bribery” to describe the president’s conduct. Ambassador Volker and Tim Morrison also said they saw no bribery, extortion or quid pro quo.
During a phone conversation at the end of August, Senator Johnson specifically asked the president whether there was some action Ukraine could take to lift the hold. The president responded with this quote: “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?”
Then you have Ambassador Sondland’s conversation with the president — a call Sondland conveniently omitted from his opening statement, in favor of his presumptions. In that conversation, the president said, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”
Finally, all the witnesses seem to agree at the end of the day, this is a policy disagreement. Lt. Colonel Vindman dramatically told the Intelligence Committee that the July 25 call was “inappropriate” and “my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out.” From the perspective of Dr. Hill, Kent, Taylor and Holmes, the president’s July 25 call was “not in line with American national security goals.”
American foreign policy goals, however, are not set by diplomats. It is the American people, through their elected officials, who determine how we conduct foreign relations. Certainly, career government officials care deeply for their country, and we are grateful for their service, but the American people chose President Trump to set foreign policy.
However, to Democrats, all foreign policy decisions, especially those by this president, are potentially impeachable. Would that thinking extend to circumstances where a prior president told a Russian leader he would have “more flexibility” after the election? Surely our founders would have rejected that notion, and every Congress up until these sham proceedings has done the same.
When you look at the facts — not the presumptions, feelings and hearsay on display at the Intelligence Committee — there are several facts all witnesses agree upon.
First, President Donald Trump is generally skeptical of foreign aid. America has long been the world’s bank, bailing out troubled countries even when they criticize us. Central to this inquiry is a policy disagreement — a longstanding Republican/Democrat disagreement. If we polled my friends on the Agriculture Committee, Republicans would tell you they support giving commodities to foreign countries as opposed to cold hard cash. Democrats, as in the Obama Administration, prefer to give foreign countries cash. Under this rubric, with regard to Ukraine, it makes sense that President Trump’s administration would endorse providing Javelins, the anti-tank weapons, over difficult-to-track and easy-to-steal cash.
Second, witnesses also agreed that President Trump had a deeply held belief that Ukraine is a corrupt country. The evidence shows this is not only reasonable, but accurate. We are talking about massive corruption where government officials are also oligarchs, controlling business and lining their pockets with Ukrainian — and American — taxpayer dollars.
Third, zero witnesses identified a crime here. In fact, as the AP pointed out in a November 21 piece, zero witnesses personally attested the president conditioned aid on an announcement of investigations or actual investigations being conducted.
Mr. Ratcliffe asked Ambassador Taylor and Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent if “they could assert evidence of an impeachable offense.” Neither witness had any such evidence. Ambassador Yovanovich was asked if she had evidence of the president soliciting or accepting a bribe and she said no. Lt. Col. Vindman and Jennifer Williams also said they had not used the word “bribery” to describe the president’s conduct. Ambassador Volker and Tim Morrison also said they saw no bribery, extortion or quid pro quo.
During a phone conversation at the end of August, Senator Johnson specifically asked the president whether there was some action Ukraine could take to lift the hold. The president responded with this quote: “No way. I would never do that. Who told you that?”
Then you have Ambassador Sondland’s conversation with the president — a call Sondland conveniently omitted from his opening statement, in favor of his presumptions. In that conversation, the president said, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”
Finally, all the witnesses seem to agree at the end of the day, this is a policy disagreement. Lt. Colonel Vindman dramatically told the Intelligence Committee that the July 25 call was “inappropriate” and “my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out.” From the perspective of Dr. Hill, Kent, Taylor and Holmes, the president’s July 25 call was “not in line with American national security goals.”
American foreign policy goals, however, are not set by diplomats. It is the American people, through their elected officials, who determine how we conduct foreign relations. Certainly, career government officials care deeply for their country, and we are grateful for their service, but the American people chose President Trump to set foreign policy.
However, to Democrats, all foreign policy decisions, especially those by this president, are potentially impeachable. Would that thinking extend to circumstances where a prior president told a Russian leader he would have “more flexibility” after the election? Surely our founders would have rejected that notion, and every Congress up until these sham proceedings has done the same.
this has just been another witch hunt.
the discovery phase in the senate is going to be wild. i hope you guys are ready. biden is probably the best shot at taking down trump. but the dems are going to sacrifice him in the senate trial. the evidence that is going to come out in the discovery phase will kill his campaign. all the while mcconnell will drag this thing out until may, maybe even longer. none of the candidates will be able to leave dc. they wont be able to campaign. this will hinder their 2020 race.
the dems are going to push through knowing this might happen. even though they all know there is a snowballs chance in hell that the reps actually vote to impeach trump. talk about cutting of the nose to spite the face.
I just don't see how anyone could have paid attention to these hearings and come to the conclusion it is a witch hunt. It seems pretty clear that it happened.
Biden isn't being impeached, you realize that right? Even if you think Biden did something wrong, that doesn't mean that Trump's quid pro quo isn't impeachable.
The House has a job to do. And they should do their job no matter what they think the Senate might do. They have passed numerous bills that the Senate wont even vote on, but that doesn't mean the House should just quit passing bills. This is the same basic idea.
A witch hunt? Really Wayne? So all the people who testified in the impeachment inquiry are guilty of lying to Congress?
Trump didn't put the screws to Zelensky to get him to announce a Biden investigation in exchange for Ukraine's military aid and a visit to the WH?
Jon Turley, a Never Trumper law professor, testified yesterday that all the Dems are attempting to do here is lower the standard for future impeachments to little to nothing and make it yet another political weapon.
He also noted that this would be the first impeachment in history that did not involve an actual crime.
Democrats seem to like doing this. Harry Reid used the nuclear option to kill the filibuster for partisan reasons, and now Dems are going to destroy the credibility of the impeachment process since they're so obsessed with scoring political points over Trump.
Turley then pointed out that a common factor in previous impeachments was that they “all involved established crimes.” “This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime,” he said.
He also noted that this would be the first impeachment in history that did not involve an actual crime.
Democrats seem to like doing this. Harry Reid used the nuclear option to kill the filibuster for partisan reasons, and now Dems are going to destroy the credibility of the impeachment process since they're so obsessed with scoring political points over Trump.
Turley then pointed out that a common factor in previous impeachments was that they “all involved established crimes.” “This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate and in my view not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime,” he said.
There is enough opposition to this that I'll be surprised if the vote falls on party lines. Turly made several good points.
Turley was singing a different tune during the Clinton impeachment.
1998- "In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously. Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the Government becomes a lawbreaker; it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. The allegations against President Clinton go to the very heart of the legitimacy of his office and the integrity of the political system. As an individual, a president may seek spiritual redemption in the company of friends and family. Constitutional redemption, however, is found only in the company of representatives of all three branches in the well of the Senate. It is there that legitimacy, once recklessly lost, can be regained by a president."
And keep in mind, bribery, is one of only 2 things specifically mentioned in the constitution with regards to impeachment. So for Turley to be for the Clinton impeachment, but suggest that bribery isn't impeachable (and yes, this was bribery), seems quite a bit off
Not a single witness said there was bribery involved. You're projecting your own views as fact.
By the way, this is so super serious and not all politically motivated by the Dems. So much so that one of their star legal witnesses yesterday decided to take a shitty political swipe at Trump's 13 year old kid as a way to ding Trump and his family.
Yep. This is all serious stuff by Pelosi & Co
Yep. This is all serious stuff by Pelosi & Co
The whole bribery narrative is a joke. I don't know why they didn't just make this about the fact that he was withholding aid that was intended to go to Ukraine and that went further than his discretion allows. The why is subject to way too much assumption.
That is BS. She made a play on words using his name, she didn't say anything about him.
lol sure. It's such BS that she just had to apologize for invoking the 13 year old to make a shitty partisan swipe while pretending to be there for legal guidance.
So saying "you cant make someone a Barron" is an attack to you? If I say, "you can't make UCFKnight85 a Barron in America" you would feel like I personally attacked you?
She apologized due to triggered outrage culture, nothing more. And yes, republicans can be just as triggered as liberals, and here is an example of it.
These guys are just projecting what they need to in order to believe that this impeachment debacle is worth it. Obama withheld foreign aid to Egypt 3 times during his Presidency, all with internal demands attached to releasing the hold. I guess we better charge him with a "high crime" too.
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
She apologized due to the triggered outrage culture. There was absolutely nothing in poor taste about it. She didn't even say anything about negative about Barron or comment on him personally, she just used his name as a play on words.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Gus will right this ship. Y’all need to come down from the ledge.- Latest: hemightbejeremy
-
-
