The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Nebfanatic]

Just now, Redux said:

 

Clinton was a complete and utter waste of time

Nixon's was only justified because the proof was undeniable

Hillary's laundry list is what prevented her from taking office so it doesn't matter.

 

It's all politicians trying to gain personal and political power, that's the point.

Thats about where we are with Trump so do you just think no one should ever be impeached?

[Redux]

2 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Thats about where we are with Trump so do you just think no one should ever be impeached?

 

If your definition of undeniable is incredibly loose then sure.  If it was as bullet proof as you think there would be little doubt this process ousts him right?

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

If your definition of undeniable is incredibly loose then sure.  If it was as bullet proof as you think there would be little doubt this process ousts him right?

There is undeniable evidence of obstruction of justice which is making it hard for Congress to get undeniable testimony, but it will come soon enough. Once Sondland, Pompeo, Bolton ect. testify things will become more undeniable.

 

And you are joking right? You complain about the dems being partisain and out for power, but the Republicans have helped Trump in obstruction every step of the way.  They are the ones doing everything possible ethical or not to retain power, but thats just what republicans do. You can complain about dems all day long, but who is the party actually engaging in gerrymandering and voter suppression tactics? And actively putting their head in the sand for Trumps benefit. If we had actual leaders on both sides of the aisle Trump would have been ousted over a year ago for dececrating the office. And we would have bills passing right now as well but Mitch wants to not do his job then blame the dems for not doing anything. This both sides argument is complete bullcrap. The democrats have many, many flaws, but they pale in comparison to todays GOP.

[Nebfanatic]

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

If your definition of undeniable is incredibly loose then sure.  If it was as bullet proof as you think there would be little doubt this process ousts him right?

Also the evidence we have already is far from incredibly loose. Have you been paying attention? What about the evidence is incredibly loose?

[Redux]

4 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Also the evidence we have already is far from incredibly loose. Have you been paying attention? What about the evidence is incredibly loose?

 

What exactly do you seem to think is the smoking gun?  There are no self recorded tapes of Trump, it's not even close to comparable to Nixon.

[Landlord]

20 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

If your definition of undeniable is incredibly loose then sure.  If it was as bullet proof as you think there would be little doubt this process ousts him right?

 

 

 

The evidence against Trump in regards to obstruction of justice, election interference, and this quid pro quo is undeniable in the same way it was against Nixon. However, it is not perceived as undeniable by many citizens and politicians, and a big reason for that is that so many people have an attitude where vigilance, accountability, and holding fast to the things that are true are a "waste of time". 

 

That's what you're doing. You are allowing yourself to be defeated by the ever spreading darkness and impropriety sneaking in. It's gotten tiresome. You're convinced nothing you do to fight it matters anymore. Which I understand I feel the same way often. But when you start thinking that way, that's what allows someone(s) to come in and completely redefine what 'true' and 'false' are, and control the narrative. 

 

So, there would be no doubt this would oust him if we were still living in a world where people cared about and fought for what's true. But too many are too tired. 

[Nebfanatic]

5 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

What exactly do you seem to think is the smoking gun?  There are no self recorded tapes of Trump, it's not even close to comparable to Nixon.

There is no smoking gun because the scheme has been so uncovered. It's pretty telling the defense has gone from no quid pro quo to well this happens all the time. They have admitted to doing it and are now essentially arguing that conduct isn't impeachable. What more of a smoking gun is there than that? 

[QMany]

10 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

What exactly do you seem to think is the smoking gun?  There are no self recorded tapes of Trump, it's not even close to comparable to Nixon.

Is this a rhetorical question?
 

Trump released a memo wherein he says “ I would like you to do us a favor though,” his chief of staff went on television and admitted quid pro quo for holding up the aid, and then his personal attorney admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens on TV. That’s just for starters. 

 

What do you need, a video of Trump holding two forms of identification saying, “please do this impeachable bribe?”

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

38 minutes ago, Redux said:

Nixon's was only justified because the proof was undeniable

It was pretty dang far into the process when Republicans were still saying the process was not justified and he was innocent.

 

Let's let the process play out and see where it goes.

[Redux]

For the record, I understand why a lot of you think I'm defending him.  But how is a 2nd or 3rd hand account of a whistleblower from the Democratic party as undeniable as the Nixon tapes.  And yes I understand the "admission" by Trump and aforementioned "justification" of it.  To me this isn't a home run like many seem to think.

[BigRedBuster]

19 minutes ago, Redux said:

What exactly do you seem to think is the smoking gun?

He and his close advisors have literally stated he's done what he's being accused of.

But...you know....he's not allowing them to actually testify.  

[BigRedBuster]

Just now, Redux said:

For the record, I understand why a lot of you think I'm defending him.  But how is a 2nd or 3rd hand account of a whistleblower from the Democratic party as undeniable as the Nixon tapes.  And yes I understand the "admission" by Trump and aforementioned "justification" of it.  To me this isn't a home run like many seem to think.

He won't allow the people who have that first hand account to testify.  

So, to review, you are requiring first hand account of the facts.  The possibly guilty party is preventing that from happening.

 

Does that sound all nice?

[BigRedBuster]

I will say something about the proceedings with the Ambassador.  The Democrats need to get off the act about her being this weak woman and constantly asking about her feelings and how it affected her emotionally...bla bla...bla......

 

It comes off as condescending to their own witness. 

She's a strong and capable woman.  She's gone against bad foreign leaders representing our country.  She can handle questions without the condescension.  

[TGHusker]

 

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, Redux said:

For the record, I understand why a lot of you think I'm defending him.  But how is a 2nd or 3rd hand account of a whistleblower from the Democratic party as undeniable as the Nixon tapes.  And yes I understand the "admission" by Trump and aforementioned "justification" of it.  To me this isn't a home run like many seem to think.

They admitted to it and now are blocking the first hand witnesses from testifying. What more do you want at this juncture?