Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

That's the best part about Murkowski's statement: "I have come to the conclusion that there will be no fair trial in the Senate [because my party sets the rules]." But that is the mental gymnastics enablers must go through to acquit.

Link to post

  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You have long ago proven yourself to be intellectually dishonest and resistant to facts and reason.

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 neede

You would invoke Alan Dershowitz to defend Donald Trump.  He defended Epstein and procured his sweetheart deal that allowed him to continue raping children. Epstein pled the 5th when as

Posted Images

4 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

We're talking about the Obama admin's spying in an election TODAY?

 

Cute. That's a pretty egregious claim, and if true a Trump administration backed by a GOP House and Senate and right leaning Supreme Court could have put Obama behind bars and forever tainted the Dems.  Could have packaged it with Trump's claim that there were 3 million fraudulent votes cast in the 2016 election, mostly by illegal immigrants for Hillary. Any smoke or fire behind those two, and the Democrats would be toast, right?

 

A more reasonable explanation is that the various U.S. intelligence agencies had all picked up the Russian chatter about influencing the U.S election, and combined with Donald Trump's proven entanglements with Russian oligarchs, and the clearly illegal activities of Trump's cohorts in Russia, President Obama was notified that U.S. agencies were watching Donald Trump as a Person of Interest. Whether there was collusion or not, the Republican candidate for President was in a position to be compromised. This is how bipartisan intelligence has operated forever. 

 

Obama had a lot of choices, including going public to hurt Trump. That would seem to be the prize for political spying, right?  Instead he has the administration stay mum throughout the election, believing any leak would be interpreted as a political trick to help Hillary, and might backfire. They were pretty convinced Hillary would win without it. 

 

What else you got today?

  • Plus1 5
Link to post

42 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

The Ds had time for over 2 weeks vacation at the end of the inquiry.  Then Nancy dilly dallied for what seemed like a month after the vote.  That's a lot of time for the Courts to rule on these issues that would clearly be fastracked.  But I understand.  Nadler said they already had overwhelming proof, so we can ignore last minute attempts to reboot the trial.

2 weeks over the holidays and you think the courts would have cleared up any subpoenas?  Oh boy, you clearly have very little knowledge about how the courts work.  
I’m afraid your continual use of falsehoods and your apparent general knowledge deficit of the subject matter has caused me to lose interest in continuing this little debate. 
You can have the last word if you wish, but I am finished discussing this with you. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
2 hours ago, TGHusker said:

OK - let me let off steam for a moment:  :rant   :boxosoap:steam   

You know I hope the Dems nominate someone like Amy Klobuchar   - someone unexpected and squeaky clean (relative to Trump - I think she had some disgruntled staffers at one time or some story like that) - just to beat trump at his own game.  Yes, Amy may be an unrealistic nominee but she seems like the one with the smallest target on her back that Trump could attack or dig dirt up on.   I then hope that when he is kicked out of the WH by the voters that the FBI will immediately arrest him on orders of the NYSD for crimes such as these.    

Ok, back to reality world - I'm willing to vote for Bloomberg, Sanders, anyone if it means voting against Trump.  I cannot vote for any GOP Congressional representative this time around.   This may be the first time I vote straight Dem - just to send a message. It may not matter in Oklahoma but I can't put my x  on the ballot  as an endorsement to what my 2 senators, Inhofe and Langford, are doing.

Speaking of Amy, and I was above,  she is now in 3rd place in Iowa. 

https://americanresearchgroup.com/pres2020/primary/dem/iadem.html

 

Link to post

I'm still trying to understand the argument against allowing witnesses to testify. All I see is, D's in the house should have done the leg work to get those witnesses to testify but they didn't. But as someone not married to either party and not balls deep in reading up on politics every day - I want to know what happened. Maybe I'm an idiot and don't understand how these things work - but if this we're a murder trail, and we had 5 dudes who witnessed the alleged murder - shouldn't we hear what they have to say before we decide if laws were broke and what laws were broke? I wasn't old enough to follow the Clinton Impeachment, so maybe this is just how things work? Help me understand why anyone wouldn't want more information on how this went down?

  • Plus1 3
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.






×
×
  • Create New...