Jump to content

The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts


  • 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

11 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

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?

 

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

 

 

Edited by Huskerzoo
Double posted
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
2 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Not sure if it is true but someone said two people "stormed" a Trump golf course and might have fired shots.  Hopefully it is just a dumb rumor.

https://wsvn.com/news/local/2-in-custody-after-police-involved-shooting-at-mar-a-lago/

 

It is true 

Quote

 

MAR-A-LAGO, Fla. (WSVN/AP) — Police have taken two women in custody after a security breach at the Mar-a-lago estate ended in a police-involved shooting.

According to the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, 30-year-old Hannah Roemhild was driving a black SUV erratically and refused to stop. She and another woman have since been taken into custody uninjured.

Florida Highway Patrol troopers were following the black SUV when it fled through two security check points on the property, Friday, at around 11:40 a.m.

 

Officers fired shots at the vehicle as it headed towards the main entrance of the estate.

The vehicle continued to flee from FHP troopers and a PBSO helicopter before it was later located on the property.

Based on a preliminary investigation, investigators believe that Roemhild approached the checkpoint at a high rate of speed and did not appear to brake in any way, according to a law enforcement official who spoke on condition in anonymity in order to discuss the investigation.

The checkpoint, a series of concrete barriers and armed officers, is blocks away from the actual resort.

 

Officials are working to determine which department fired the shots at the vehicle.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement will investigate the shooting.

The FBI is also responding to the scene.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
16 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

 

 

Actually that makes more sense. So the R’s are saying, yes Trump tied aid to helping him in his re-election, but there is nothing wrong with that, he’s guilty of what the D’s are saying, but it’s a non issue.
 

Another question - are these things not black and white? To my (HS Civics level) knowledge, it seems encouraging foreign interference and and tying American dollars to assisting a politician in an American election would break a law? I could say, hey I shoplifted but I’m short on cash and needed a meal, so it’s a non issue - but at the end of the day the law is black and white and  despite my intentions I crossed a line I cannot cross.

  • Plus1 2
Link to post
13 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

 

 

 

And I gotta admit.....I kinda agree. 

 

That's why I would have made Ukraine exhibit #5 in a long list of Trump actions and behaviors that suggest he is mentally unfit and a national security risk. #1 would be standing next to Vladimir Putin and telling the world he trusts Putin's word over the unanimous consensus of America's 17 intelligence agencies. Seriously. Think about that. And everything that came before and after it. It's actually stunning. I can't believe we moved on from there.

 

A good impeachment case would have allowed room to run through some of the 16,000 categorical lies the President has told. You could have cited the unprecedented number of Trump appointees who have since fled, either fired, sent to jail, or refusing to work for a man who revealed himself to be "a f#&%ing moron."  That last quote, of course, from a highly respected military general. Bolton figures in there: a pro-Trump mega hawk who thought Trump and Guliani totally went off the rails.

 

No liberal witch hunt. Just the sober viewpoint of people who have worked closely with the man,

 

There would have been no wiggle room. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
1 minute ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Actually that makes more sense. So the R’s are saying, yes Trump tied aid to helping him in his re-election, but there is nothing wrong with that, he’s guilty of what the D’s are saying, but it’s a non issue.
 

Another question - are these things not black and white? To my (HS Civics level) knowledge, it seems encouraging foreign interference and and tying American dollars to assisting a politician in an American election would break a law? I could say, hey I shoplifted but I’m short on cash and needed a meal, so it’s a non issue - but at the end of the day the law is black and white and  despite my intentions I crossed a line I cannot cross.

 

Glad I could help. 

 

What you brought up in really the crux of the issue here. People who are pro impeachment and removal are baffled by this. I think the vast majority of people posting in this topic fall into this camp. It feels very clear that a clear line was crossed and that this is bad and dangerous. You have to think about your own values and come to your conclusion about if this breaks a law as well as how serious it is. Further, you have to identify if you think the president can break laws. One of the assertions is that it's not possible for the president to do this. Unfortunately, the goal posts here have shifted over time. I won't go into too much detail about that, but there's concerns that people keep introducing new finish lines, democrats cross it, then they're moved. 

 

I know where I fall on this. Where do you fall? What are you concerned about one way or another? What are you going to do about it? 

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

And I gotta admit.....I kinda agree. 

 

That's why I would have made Ukraine exhibit #5 in a long list of Trump actions and behaviors that suggest he is mentally unfit and a national security risk. #1 would be standing next to Vladimir Putin and telling the world he trusts Putin's word over the unanimous consensus of America's 17 intelligence agencies. Seriously. Think about that. And everything that came before and after it. It's actually stunning. I can't believe we moved on from there.

 

A good impeachment case would have allowed room to run through some of the 16,000 categorical lies the President has told. You could have cited the unprecedented number of Trump appointees who have since fled, either fired, sent to jail, or refusing to work for a man who revealed himself to be "a f#&%ing moron."  That last quote, of course, from a highly respected military general. Bolton figures in there: a pro-Trump mega hawk who thought Trump and Guliani totally went off the rails.

 

No liberal witch hunt. Just the sober viewpoint of people who have worked closely with the man,

 

There would have been no wiggle room. 

 

So the question then becomes, why is there a law against accepting foreign aid? Is this only about money? In my opinion, it's the changing definitions that become problematic. 

 

The corruption here is absurd, it should be open, shut, and obvious. However, they had to do the equivalent of choosing the starting point on a circle. At some point they had to choose where to start and the Ukraine issue was the first thing that happened that was obvious beyond a reasonable doubt AND that had enough public support behind it. 

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

Glad I could help. 

 

What you brought up in really the crux of the issue here. People who are pro impeachment and removal are baffled by this. I think the vast majority of people posting in this topic fall into this camp. It feels very clear that a clear line was crossed and that this is bad and dangerous. You have to think about your own values and come to your conclusion about if this breaks a law as well as how serious it is. Further, you have to identify if you think the president can break laws. One of the assertions is that it's not possible for the president to do this. Unfortunately, the goal posts here have shifted over time. I won't go into too much detail about that, but there's concerns that people keep introducing new finish lines, democrats cross it, then they're moved. 

 

I know where I fall on this. Where do you fall? What are you concerned about one way or another? What are you going to do about it? 

Thanks man, I wish there was more places where facts could be presented and we could form an opinion on our own. Cable news, twitter - its all a cess pool of misinformation and shock value. I don’t like Trump but not because of the R next to his name - because of the ego, the way he talks about women, the way he treats woman, the way he talks about his opponents. There are democrats like that, and trust me I don’t like them either. I’ve known some great leaders and what made them great are the opposite of the attributes that Trump has shown me.

  • Plus1 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
42 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

The current argument (and there have been many) is this: He did what the democrats say he did. It's not good, It's just not so bad that removing him from office is worth it. 

 

13 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

And I gotta admit.....I kinda agree. 

 

That's why I would have made Ukraine exhibit #5 in a long list of Trump actions and behaviors that suggest he is mentally unfit and a national security risk. #1 would be standing next to Vladimir Putin and telling the world he trusts Putin's word over the unanimous consensus of America's 17 intelligence agencies. Seriously. Think about that. And everything that came before and after it. It's actually stunning. I can't believe we moved on from there.

 

A good impeachment case would have allowed room to run through some of the 16,000 categorical lies the President has told. You could have cited the unprecedented number of Trump appointees who have since fled, either fired, sent to jail, or refusing to work for a man who revealed himself to be "a f#&%ing moron."  That last quote, of course, from a highly respected military general. Bolton figures in there: a pro-Trump mega hawk who thought Trump and Guliani totally went off the rails.

 

No liberal witch hunt. Just the sober viewpoint of people who have worked closely with the man,

 

There would have been no wiggle room. 

 

I respectfully disagree. Bribing/extorting a foreign country, with taxpayer money, to announce ginned-up investigations of a political opponent is unequivocally impeachable and worthy of removal.

 

I do agree that it is on a long list of other impeachable acts.

  • Plus1 1
Link to post

so....next democratic debate....1 of the candidates  says "china...if you're listening....we can make a trade deal as soon as i become president if you give us dirt on trump"   the republicans would STFU because it's all good.   

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...