The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Redux]

6 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Man, I've got no blinders. I see Trump for what he is and I've got no problems calling him out as such.

 

I'm under no impressions Biden is a saint or Democrats are faultless. But he seems to me to be a good man. Trump does not.

 

I've researched all of this myself. I don't get how someone can look at this set of facts and draw the conclusion both sides are equally guilty. The adults in the room said there is no there there. I do not weigh their testimony as equal to the Trump's or the Republican's for obvious reasons.

 

And that's all fine and dandy, but why defend Biden when he pretty clearly looks just as guilty?  Only reason I can think of is because he still has a longshot outside chance at a nomination against Orange man.

 

6 minutes ago, QMany said:

Your remedy to asking a foreign country to interfere in our election (again) ... is to challenge Trump in the very election he’s asking asking a foreign country in interfere in!?!

 

Good thing the Democrats tried the same thing, evens the playing filed out.

[Danny Bateman]

11 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

And that's all fine and dandy, but why defend Biden when he pretty clearly looks just as guilty?  Only reason I can think of is because he still has a longshot outside chance at a nomination against Orange man.

 

 

That's just it. I've heard a very simple explanation from competent professionals who have to know this stuff for their job and HE DOESN'T. Conversely, there is almost no way to paint this set of events in any way that makes Trump look innocent.

 

Now, should Biden's kid have gotten placed on that board? Nah. In general family and friends of politicians shouldn't get do-nothing jobs by dent of their relationships. That's garden variety political corruption we should all be against.

 

Trump is something much worse. He's one whole branch of the government and EASILY the most corrupt, dishonest politician I've seen in my lifetime.

 

Read this short analysis of the facts from FactCheck.org. Hardly a biased source.

 

One guy from the company was being investigated before Hunter Biden got there. He was never under investigation. Joe Biden did nothing wrong. Trump and Giuliani are making crap up about them for their own benefit.

 

Don't fall for it.

[Redux]

I guess I don't understand why it's only deflecting when Trump or the Republicans do it, but when the Democrats do it it's not that big of a deal.

[BigRedBuster]

1 hour ago, Redux said:

 

So only focusing on the crimes of one side should be scrutinized because calling out both is Republican Deflection?  That seems awfully deflecting. You would know more of their names than I, they are all over the TV accusing eachother of crimes they all commit.

What career criminals are you talking about?

[Moiraine]

37 minutes ago, Redux said:

I guess I don't understand why it's only deflecting when Trump or the Republicans do it, but when the Democrats do it it's not that big of a deal.

 

 

They aren’t close to the same.

 

Hypothetically, let’s say the prosecutor was removed to protect Burisma (that hasn’t been shown to be the case).

 

Hunter Biden started working for them after the stuff happened. If we had him removed to help Burisma, that’s corruption. But what did the Democrats get out of it? If Burisma had been found guilty, it doesn’t hurt Hunter Biden, nor does it hurt Joe Biden. What Democrats got out of it was nothing whatsoever. It would have still been wrong of Obama/Biden/others who wanted him ousted, but it pales in comparison to what Trump has done. 

 

Now back to what I first said about it not having been shown, the prosecutor was removed for not going after corruption. IIRC I read he hadn’t taken down anyone. Why are you not believing all of these experts on the matter, both Ukrainian and American, and believing Trump and Giuiliani about it instead? What about them makes you believe their side of the story about the prosecutor?

[BigRedBuster]

20 minutes ago, Redux said:

I guess I don't understand why it's only deflecting when Trump or the Republicans do it, but when the Democrats do it it's not that big of a deal.

Please explain how the Democrats are deflecting?

[Nebfanatic]

These arguments are ridiculous. Shokin was corrupt, that is a verifiable fact. Biden was doing his job. Biden asked Ukraine to fire a Ukrainian. If Trump held the aid to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired this isn't a discussion and Trump would not be getting impeached even if it was nefarious. The problem is Trump did this for an announcement of investigation into an American citizen who just so happened to also be his political rival. If you can't see the difference I'm not sure what else there is to say other than history will not look kindly on you. Sorry not sorry

[Notre Dame Joe]

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

They aren’t close to the same.

 

Hypothetically, let’s say the prosecutor was removed to protect Burisma (that hasn’t been shown to be the case).

 

Hunter Biden started working for them after the stuff happened. If we had him removed to help Burisma, that’s corruption. But what did the Democrats get out of it? If Burisma had been found guilty, it doesn’t hurt Hunter Biden, nor does it hurt Joe Biden. What Democrats got out of it was nothing whatsoever. It would have still been wrong of Obama/Biden/others who wanted him ousted, but it pales in comparison to what Trump has done. 

 

Now back to what I first said about it not having been shown, the prosecutor was removed for not going after corruption. IIRC I read he hadn’t taken down anyone. Why are you not believing all of these experts on the matter, both Ukrainian and American, and believing Trump and Giuiliani about it instead? What about them makes you believe their side of the story about the prosecutor?

 

The same reason you won't believe Jay Sekulow when he tells you Trump really just wants to investigate foreign corruption.  It's a partisan issue, not a legal one.  That's why the American public yawned at the 'impeachment' hearings seeing politics as usual that will not result in the premature removal of the President. 

[Nebfanatic]

12 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

The same reason you won't believe Jay Sekulow when he tells you Trump really just wants to investigate foreign corruption.  It's a partisan issue, not a legal one.  That's why the American public yawned at the 'impeachment' hearings seeing politics as usual that will not result in the premature removal of the President. 

Jay Sekulow is not an apolitical expert on Ukrainian affairs like many that testified were. He is a talking head on Fox News. Why should we trust what he says? And I wasn't aware Ukrainians were partisan in American politics. Shouldn't they love Trump since he gave them Javelins instead of blankets? I mean that's what the Republicans want me to think.

 

 

Didn't realize Jay was also a Trump attorney and advisor. Lol! He is basically Guiliani! 

[JJ Husker]

Hmmm, a 124 page P&R topic and how many witnesses and days of testimony in the House and not one person has shown a single sign of amending their original opinion one iota. I’d like to call it surprising but....

 

I’ll just add, it is a disingenuous argument to claim nothing should be done about Trump’s malfeasance because others have done things just as bad or because it’s just politicians trying to gain power. While both of these things are true, it is an indefensible position to accept a President subverting the Constitution by saying others have done things or by questioning the motives of such investigations. Right is right and wrong is wrong and facts are facts. You simply cannot forego doing the right thing even if many are pursuing it for the wrong reasons. If you are willing to accept wrong doing by either side then you will get exactly the type of government you deserve.

[Danny Bateman]

3 hours ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

The same reason you won't believe Jay Sekulow when he tells you Trump really just wants to investigate foreign corruption.  It's a partisan issue, not a legal one.  That's why the American public yawned at the 'impeachment' hearings seeing politics as usual that will not result in the premature removal of the President. 

 

It's not about the premature removal of anybody.

 

It's about right vs. wrong, accountability and finding out if Republicans are actually the gutless, craven cowards the appear to be or if some of them actually have any spine left.

[Redux]

So nobody thinks the Democrats have come out of this looking desperate?  Forget the fact Trump probably did a bunch of bad s#!t that deserves removal for a second and look at this thing as a whole.  Does this actually look like a well thought out, well executed plan?  Or does it look like a glorified witch hunt with a half assed cast of characters.

[JJ Husker]

7 minutes ago, Redux said:

So nobody thinks the Democrats have come out of this looking desperate?  Forget the fact Trump probably did a bunch of bad s#!t that deserves removal for a second and look at this thing as a whole.  Does this actually look like a well thought out, well executed plan?  Or does it look like a glorified witch hunt with a half assed cast of characters.

I'm not sure it matters what it looks like. It does look like desperation and it does look like they wanted to throw as much sh#t against the wall to see what would stick. But some of it did stick and something needs to be done about cleaning the wall.

 

There are 4 options for what politicians can do.

1- they can do the right thing for the right reasons.

2- they can do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

3- they can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.

4- they can do the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

 

Well #1 is so rare in our government we might as well consider it extinct. 3 & 4 are definitely not things we want or should encourage. I guess that leaves #2 as our only hope of ever getting back to seeing more of #1.

[Danny Bateman]

34 minutes ago, Redux said:

So nobody thinks the Democrats have come out of this looking desperate?  Forget the fact Trump probably did a bunch of bad s#!t that deserves removal for a second and look at this thing as a whole.  Does this actually look like a well thought out, well executed plan?  Or does it look like a glorified witch hunt with a half assed cast of characters.

 

The fact it's not going to work doesn't mean they look desperate for having the stones to do it.

 

Hard to forget Trump has done a bunch of bad sh#t. That's the relevant context that makes it seem NOT desperate.

 

I think Dems, particularly Schiff who has led things in the Intel Committee so far, have done a great job. I don't give a crap how many times Republicans howl about witch hunts because they're wrong. It's like a kid whining about how unfair it is they got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. They're only whining because they got caught.

[BigRedBuster]

39 minutes ago, Redux said:

So nobody thinks the Democrats have come out of this looking desperate?  Forget the fact Trump probably did a bunch of bad s#!t that deserves removal for a second and look at this thing as a whole.  Does this actually look like a well thought out, well executed plan?  Or does it look like a glorified witch hunt with a half assed cast of characters.

Wait.....so we are supposed to forget that the President probably did some bad unconstitutional crap ......so that we can see if the people holding him accountable looks desperate?

 

what kind of loony tune thought is that?

 

Congress has the constitution job of holding the president accountable. It’s not the Democrats fault there isn’t a Republican with a spine to do their jobs too.