Jump to content
knapplc

The First Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts


Quote

 

There appears to be a common thread that runs through all of this opposition and stated hatred: “He is not part of the club. He is not one of us. He can’t be controlled.”

The unrelenting opposition to Trump is not based on the fictional quid pro quo with Ukraine’s president but rather a desperate need by the entrenched establishment from both political parties to maintain the status quo of their all-powerful club — aka part of the “swamp” Trump sought to drain.

For Trump to be convicted in a Senate trial, 20 Republican senators would have to join forces with the 47 Democrats. We should not worry about those who openly dislike Trump, such as Sens. Mitt Romney (R-Utah), Susan Collins (R-Maine) or Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska); we should worry about those in the purple states, who face tough reelection fights in 2020, and those who have continually criticized and demeaned the president in private.  

 

The above quote is from the link below.  It is from the perspective of a Trump supporter.  What is clearly seen in the article is the 'state of denial' some of these folks are in.  The author basically says the reason Trump is being impeached isn't because of any crimes - there were none according to the article but because Trump was an outsider, not a part of the 'club' the establishment - the DEEP STATE. 

His 'fear' is that there may be enough club members in the Senate to 'convict' Trump of the 'false" (his words) allegations against Trump.

To me this speaks of the great political divide among us.  I'm not talking about Dem vs GOP, or Conservative vs liberal.  While those are long standing divides that will remain - the divide is much deeper.  It is "Truth telling vs Truth denying" or better put "Loyalty to the Constitution vs loyalty to a party".   It is so clear to any objective observer that Trump has violated the constitution, however, to the party preserving loyalists, no amount of evidence could persuade them to take a second look.  This blind loyalty makes our governance ineffective at the best and becomes a potential destructive force to governance at its worse.  3rd world countries are marked by this type of blind loyalty to a party and spend decades suffering for it.   Truth must always be the goal - whether it hurts your party or not.  If it isn't then one day your party will be on the other side of the ledger wishing truth would prevail.

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/474242-is-a-trap-being-set-for-trump-in-the-senate-trial

 

  • Plus1 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

More to my post above.    Rand Paul has become a major disappointment to me.  He is full scale apologists and

a truth denier.  He says the impeachment process is dumping down the country.  I say blind party loyalty and Trump's derogatory

statements and actions are doing so.

 

 

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/15/rand-paul-fears-donald-trump-impeachment-will-dumb/

Quote

 

Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican, said Sunday he worried that the Democratic effort to impeach President Trump would “dumb down and destroy the country.”

He characterized the push to remove Mr. Trump from office as a “disagreement over policy” led by Democrats who “don’t like President Trump, they don’t like his demeanor, so they’ve decided to sort of criminalize politics.”

“But I don’t think it’s a good thing,” he said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I don’t think it’s a good day for the country. I think it’s a sad day because I hope it doesn’t devolve into that every president like in different parts of Latin America where we either impeach or throw presidents in jail because we don’t like their politics. I think that will really dumb down and destroy the country.”

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, QMany said:

 

 

Wire fraud is pretty serious, but their argument isn't the strong... I'm curious why they didn't go with violating the Impoundment Act. Maybe they thought they wouldn't get anywhere since he eventually released the funds.

Share this post


Link to post

Since the funds got released, eventually, the claim won't hold up.  Doesn't make it right, but it will ultimately be his saving grace IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Redux said:

Since the funds got released, eventually, the claim won't hold up.  Doesn't make it right, but it will ultimately be his saving grace IMO.

 

The funds got released, eventually, only because they got caught. That fact isn't an absolute defense; it is really not even a good defense.

 

Quote

"Turning to the facts, the military and security assistance was released to Ukraine only after President Trump got caught.... remarkably, he still has not held a White House meeting with President Zelensky."

pp. 130-31.

 

EDIT: If you are referring to only the Impoundment Act, they do mention it but don't dive into it too deeply:

Quote

 

The President did so despite the longstanding bipartisan support of Congress, uniform support across federal departments and agencies for the provision to Ukraine of the military assistance, and his obligations under the Impoundment Control Act.

 

p. 83.

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, QMany said:

Somebody needs to tell Rudy he has a right to remain silent.

 

Graham is supposed to be holding a congressional investigation on Rudy's findings in Ukraine. I say let them pursue that circus as Rudy is likely to put himself into a 12 foot pool of doodoo trying to chase this Biden thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Russian TV jokes about Trump being their puppet.

 

Maybe we can add "Traitor" to the list of impeachable offenses.

 

https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-state-tv-calls-trump-their-agent

191216-Russia_s_State-TV-Calls-Trump-The

Quote

 

Sometimes a picture doesn’t have to be worth a thousand words. Just a few will do. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov returned home from his visit with President Donald Trump in the Oval Office last week, Russian state media was gloating over the spectacle. TV channel Rossiya 1 aired a segment entitled “Puppet Master and ‘Agent’—How to Understand Lavrov’s Meeting With Trump.”

Vesti Nedeli, a Sunday news show on the same network, pointed out that it was Trump, personally, who asked Lavrov to pose standing near as Trump sat at his desk. It’s almost the literal image of a power behind the throne.

 

 

Quote

 

The host, Vladimir Soloviev, smugly asked: “Should we get another apartment in Rostov ready?” Soloviev’s allusion was to the situation of Viktor Yanukovych, former president of Ukraine, who was forced to flee to Russia in 2014 and settled in the city of Rostov-on-Don.

Such parallels between Yanukovych and Trump are being drawn not only because of their common association with Paul Manafort, adviser to the first, campaign chairman for the second, but also because Russian experts and politicians consider both of them to be openly pro-Kremlin. 

 

Quote

 

Dmitry Kiselyov, the host of the Sunday news show Vesti Nedeli, accused the Democrats of joining forces with Hollywood, carrying out various conspiracies in order to undermine Trump’s popularity. Reporting for Vesti Nedeli from Washington, Mikhail Antonov used the term “the Cold War,” a fraught rhetorical twist to describe the clash between Trump and the Democratic majority in the House of Representatives.

“Putin has expressed undisguised delight with the crusade led by Trump and Giuliani to whitewash Moscow’s interference in the U.S. elections.”


 

 

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Redux said:

Since the funds got released, eventually, the claim won't hold up.  Doesn't make it right, but it will ultimately be his saving grace IMO.

 

2 hours ago, QMany said:

 

The funds got released, eventually, only because they got caught. That fact isn't an absolute defense; it is really not even a good defense.

 

pp. 130-31.

 

EDIT: If you are referring to only the Impoundment Act, they do mention it but don't dive into it too deeply:

p. 83.

 

Here's my opinion on all of this (not that it matters, but I think context is getting mixed up):

 

As always, I'll use myself as an example of this.

 

When I was a kid, around 8 years old, I think, my older brother (the 'finger') and I (the 'bagman') got the bright idea to start a crime spree (lasted all of a day) in which we would go to one of the grocery stores on the way home, and would steal things.  My brother would pick out the items we would 'lift', and would put them into my bag, and we'd go home.

 

We got away with some Pop Tarts on the first try.  Like most criminals, we decided to step up our game.  So, the next day, we went into the same store, and my brother picks up a very large bag of caramels, and begins to put them into my bag.

 

The store manager stepped into the opposite end of the aisle.  When my brother saw him, he said, "Sir," held up the bag of caramels, and put the bag of caramels back onto the shelf, and we ran out of the store.

 

About 10 minutes later, as we walked home thinking, "Whew, we dodged a bullet there," we turned down a side street.  While walking down that side street, there was a honk behind us.  We turned around, and there was the manager in his car, and behind him, a police officer.

 

We both paused and immediately, I thought of all of the horrible stories my mother told us about Federal PMITA prison.

 

Thankfully, neither the manager or the police officer got out of the car.  The manager simply said, "Hey, you kids, don't let me ever see you in my store again, or I'll have you arrested for shoplifting!"

 

Needless to say, I didn't step foot into that store until well after I was grown, married, with children.  And that was only because my Father-In-Law needed to stop there.

 

Why the story?  Well, it went to our intent in our brief crime spree.

 

My brother put the caramels back.  He even showed that we never took the candy out of the store.  But it was the INTENT that made it a crime, not the action.

 

If a woman puts an ad out to have her husband whacked - no money needs to change hands.  As soon as she says that she wants a person murdered, it's the intent that makes it a crime.

 

What was the President's intent to withhold the funds?  If he says, "Corruption," then there should be receipts to back that up.  And we all know he has none.

  • Plus1 5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...