Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, QMany said:

He said he was going to release his taxes...

He said he was going to sit down with Mueller...

 

He's not going to testify, and repeating his lie doesn't help anything.

Can the President be served a subpoena? Just looked it up and it seems like the answer is no.

Link to comment

 

SPOILER ALERT: He lied. 

 

In a written response to special counsel Robert Mueller last November under oath, Trump had said, “I do not recall discussing WikiLeaks with” Stone, “nor do I recall Mr. Stone having discussed WikiLeaks with my campaign.”

 

Gates and Manafort just testified under oath to the contrary. That testimony helped convict Stone on all seven counts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The first tweet (Kaus) is an example of the type of pathetic arguments Republicans are trying to come up with to show how Trump's actions are OK.  The second tweet (Zeitz) shows how easy it is to show how stupid it is.

 

 

Id add I think after the Kennedy brothers they enacted a nepotism clause/rule so that it wouldn’t  happen again as they foresaw it could be problematic.  Its why the offspring now employed by the WH are unpaid.  (I think this is all true - I worry a bit that I dreamt it)

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

Was Obama holding up aid as leverage at the time? 

Did the US come through with missile defense to Eastern Europe?  It seemed to just drop out of the news cycle.

 

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

The first tweet (Kaus) is an example of the type of pathetic arguments Republicans are trying to come up with to show how Trump's actions are OK.  The second tweet (Zeitz) shows how easy it is to show how stupid it is.

 

 

The pathetic [actually absurd] notion is that it's wrong to use both official and unofficial lines of communication with foreign powers.  Every nation and every leader uses both.  edit: and Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General, not Sec of State.  So there's no need to litigate the past over a crime that does not exist.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

Did the US come through with missile defense to Eastern Europe?  It seemed to just drop out of the news cycle.

 

The pathetic [actually absurd] notion is that it's wrong to use both official and unofficial lines of communication with foreign powers.  Every nation and every leader uses both.  edit: and Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General, not Sec of State.  So there's no need to litigate the past over a crime that does not exist.

You really are having a hard time with this aren’t you?  

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Why are some struggling with the key differences between their ridiculous examples and what Trump did?

 

Negotiating tit for tat, Kennedy removing missiles at a later time, was done in the interests of our country. What Trump did was done for his personal benefit and involved foreign powers in our election process. These are nowhere near the same situations. Wake up and get smarter.

  • Plus1 6
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment

1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Why are some struggling with the key differences between their ridiculous examples and what Trump did?

 

Negotiating tit for tat, Kennedy removing missiles at a later time, was done in the interests of our country. What Trump did was done for his personal benefit and involved foreign powers in our election process. These are nowhere near the same situations. Wake up and get smarter.

JJ from the top rope!

 

Seriously, even elected Republicans can't say what he did was ok.

  • Plus1 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, JJ Husker said:

Why are some struggling with the key differences between their ridiculous examples and what Trump did?

 

Negotiating tit for tat, Kennedy removing missiles at a later time, was done in the interests of our country. What Trump did was done for his personal benefit and involved foreign powers in our election process. These are nowhere near the same situations. Wake up and get smarter.

Ding ding ding.....

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Is Ukraine in any way consistent with a hundred other examples of Trump not understanding basic civics and law, confusing, undermining, and often horrifying the people he himself appointed as he stumbles through yet another blatant exercise of self-interest?

 

Yes. The answer is yes. 

 

I know everyone wants to nail the quid pro quo, but impeachment is about a pattern of unfitness, and you don't even need Ukraine for that. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Is Ukraine in any way consistent with a hundred other examples of Trump not understanding basic civics and law, confusing, undermining, and often horrifying the people he himself appointed as he stumbles through yet another blatant exercise of self-interest?

 

Yes. The answer is yes. 

 

I know everyone wants to nail the quid pro quo, but impeachment is about a pattern of unfitness, and you don't even need Ukraine for that. 

 

 

I don’t think the type of impeachment they’re working on is about unfitness, or at least, that by itself isn’t enough without crimes. They need to show crimes, although that’s loosely defined. He should have been removed for unfitness a year or two ago by the people whose responsibility it is.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...