Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread

knapplc

By knapplc,
in Politics & Religion

Recommended Posts


ActualCornHusker Scout Team

ActualCornHusker

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

Really?? Thinking the Constitution is the law of the land and has been for hundreds of years (and everybody has obeyed it until now) and that the person sitting in the WH and their employees should as well is now a “far left” opinion?

 

I’m fine being called a lib, Its accurate. But most people here are not - they just care about the country.  If thats far left liberalism now days then welcome to the dark side folks!! 

 

The question is more the degree to which he offended, and if there is evidence to back it up

 

I'm genuinely interested in how you view the overall tension in the country. On a scale of "Post-WW2" to "The Civil War", how do you view the tension that exists in the political landscape currently, and how big of a "threat" do you view Trump as to the Republic?

Link to comment
Nebfanatic Heisman Winner

Nebfanatic

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

This one?

 

 

 

No this one

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Interesting thing about this.  

 

Shokin was widely viewed as a corrupt prosecutor by almost all of our allies.  It was widely known within our our foreign policy team that he actually needed to be fired because he WASN'T prosecuting corruption in Ukraine.  

LINK

 

 

You see, in the world of Trump, he does a great job of making up crap that is completely opposite of what reality is.

 

LINK

 

 

 

Oh....isn't this an interesting point.

 

 

Again....the investigations were about the period BEFORE Hunter got involved with the company.

 

Hmmmm...

 

 

 

 

Let me point out (and this is a very important point for me) I am all for investigating Hunter Biden's roll at Burisma.  But, that is a completely different investigation than the current investigation into what Trump did.

 

Trump is doing nothing but deflecting.  This is like if I suspect you stole from me so I go a week later to your house and shoot and kill you.  I get arrested for murder.  During my trial, I demand that evidence be brought to the trial that you stole from me.  Sure, you may have stole from me, but, that doesn't mean I'm innocent of murder.

 

It's nothing but a deflection and it literally has nothing to do with the Trump trial.

 

Now....you said this has happened in every Presidency.  Do you have any other evidence of this since this one is questionable?

 

Just now, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Yes, I'm familiar. Sondland testified that he felt the aid was tied to the investigation into Biden/Burisma but no one told him that - it was his assumption...

No he said that there was in fact a quid pro quo for a WH meeting which would constitute bribery

Link to comment

knapplc Legend

knapplc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Yes, I'm familiar. Sondland testified that he felt the aid was tied to the investigation into Biden/Burisma but no one told him that - it was his assumption...

 

Wrong. Sondland stated that the release of the aid was tied to an announcement of an investigation into Biden. Not an actual investigation.  Sondland was unequivocal about Trump's meaning and involvement.

 

You're saying you see wiggle room out of that for Trump, that this is not damning testimony by one of his supporters?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Landlord Head Coach

Landlord

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

That's super weird because I'm having a hard time seeing all the critiquing of Trump amidst all the defending of Trump.  One could reasonably presume, based on your posts, that you find more to support than to criticize.

 

 

 

Just as easy to presume that the person is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, comes in new and sees a big group of people with a more left perspective and generally all agreeing about a lot of conclusions, so instead of just posting along "yeah, I agree" finds ways to counter the overarching narrative of the community.

 

In other words, maybe the fact that we all already agree might be part of what's contributing to his posts being less critical or pushing back on certain things (support, defense, and disagreement are not the same words btw; I haven't seen him do much of any supporting of Trump).

 

 

 

When I go home to Nebraska people think I'm a flaming libtard snowflake radical leftist. When I hang out with my super woke progressive friends sometimes they think I'm a toxic male with problematic conservative views. Because when we get into conversations, I already know all the things in which we agree with, so those generally go without saying. Hence, I end up arguing the side most counter to the group I'm in. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
Nebfanatic Heisman Winner

Nebfanatic

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Who cares about the meeting. I'll side with @Notre Dame Joe on that specific issue.

Great, thank you for stating your view on the subject. You are wrong, but at least you will firmly place yourself there. Congrats to you

21 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

They found the jury instructions in that case erroneous and the Government's interpretation overbroad. SCOTUS held: "Setting up a meeting, talking to another official, or organizing an event—without more—does not fit that definition of “official act.” Pp. 13–24. They then went on to include my quote above showing applicable examples of illegality.

 

Funny, they also noted, "Section 201 prohibits quid pro quo corruption—the exchange of a thing of value for an 'official act.' " And Trump's Ambassador testified to "quid pro quo," those exact words, at his direction.

 

We have now gone full turn:

  • Deny;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Admit, but claim no QPQ;
  • Proven wrong;
  • Claim QPQ is okay. 

 

Link to comment

ActualCornHusker Scout Team

ActualCornHusker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

Wrong. Sondland stated that the release of the aid was tied to an announcement of an investigation into Biden. Not an actual investigation.  Sondland was unequivocal about Trump's meaning and involvement.

 

You're saying you see wiggle room out of that for Trump, that this is not damning testimony by one of his supporters?

 

He stated that it was his assumption that the aid was tied... That's not near substantive enough to convict...

 

Link to comment
Nebfanatic Heisman Winner

Nebfanatic

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

Who cares about the meeting. I'll side with @Notre Dame Joe on that specific issue.

Who cares about the President bribing a foreign leader to investigate an American citizen for his personal gain? I mean really, thats a prettybabsurd stance to care about such a thing

1 minute ago, QMany said:

Even if you ignore the WH meeting...

 

Is anyone, in good faith, arguing that the $400M aid was not withheld contingent on these investigation announcements? 

Yes they are and they will. I mean, I guess its not in good faith but they will argue it until the end

Link to comment
FrankWheeler Scout Team

FrankWheeler

Posted
Posted

 

4 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

He stated that it was his assumption that the aid was tied... That's not near substantive enough to convict...

 

 

The White House Chief of Staff confirmed that the aid was tied to the investigation and meeting.  He's also the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and has oversight of the aid.

 

 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...