Jump to content


The First Trump Impeachment Thread


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NM11046 said:

I heard an interview with Carl Bernstein this week and he has coined our current political environment as “America’s Cold Civil War”.  
 

As we talked about in another thread, the division started before Trump, but he is the ignorant rube they got into the office and will be the instigator of whatever action actually comes of the end of his reign.

Good analogy of a bad situation.   Dems "hated" Reagan, GOP hated Clinton, Dems hated GWB, GOP hated Obama, Dems hate Trump - I guess we should have made Jimmy Carter King :blink:   I use 'hated' as an exaggeration.  Actually this time around the hate is turned back on all others by Trump and his followers.  While it is true everyone was shocked by the election and most of us had doubts about Trump's ability, I think the true hate has been generated by Trump, his policies and his more alt right followers. Yes, there is hate going towards him as well.  I think we see something different than what we saw prior to Obama.  Wt Regan, Clinton and with GWB it was more of a hate like my team vs your team - we hate Iowa for example.  But starting wt Obama and now wt Trump there has been a deeper type of hatred

that has entered in.  I think the alt right is the cause of it.  I genuinely don't think San Fran Nan hates Trump I think as as I heard a Maryland Dem congressman say on NPR this morning that they have pity on him while they (Congress) have to uphold their constitutional duty to address wrong doing in the admin.  That is a big difference - pity vs hate. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

22 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Hopefully in a jail cell - NYSD should jump on him the minute he steps out of the white house after he is no longer president.

 

That would be FANTASTIC. Rather than boarding Marine One and flying away into the sunset, he gets escorted into an unmarked black SUV.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, QMany said:

Before the 2016 election, Giuliani was coordinating with FBI agents in the NY field office re-opening the Hillary Clinton investigation. Two days before Comey (improperly) announced that the FBI was reopening its investigation into Clinton’s emails (and swayed the election), Giuliani went on Fox News and said, “I do think that all of these revelations about Hillary Clinton are beginning to have an impact. He’s got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next two days.” 

 

I suspect we're seeing these dirty deeds again. Giuliani is meeting with Shokin and other corrupt officials to "gin-up" evidence, if you want to call it that, for an DOJ (Bill Barr) announcement to slander Biden. 

 

 

Are you implying that orchestrated the reopening? I've seen nothing to form that opinion. He's only ever said that he new about the then "new" emails and that the FBI asked him about how he knew when they investigated the leak.

Link to comment

21 hours ago, TGHusker said:

Again we have to go back to the characteristics of a cult.  Facts are meaningless.  Facts become meaningless when the cult leader shouts out 'fake news' all the time.  This develops the alt-universe that the Trump diehards are in. 

Conspiracy theories have to be created to protect 'their facts' and bogey men (deep state) created to have an enemy to rally against. 

I realllllllly hate to see what 4 more years of Trump would do for our country. He has already destroyed the party I've been registered in for my full adult life and I'm old now.  But even worse - much worse - he is destroying any civility in politics, destroying the credibility of the press, brain washing the minds of countless individuals. 

Freudian slip?

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Are you implying that orchestrated the reopening? I've seen nothing to form that opinion. He's only ever said that he new about the then "new" emails and that the FBI asked him about how he knew when they investigated the leak.

 

Not that he was providing FBI information to re-open it, but they were leaking him information about the investigation that got to the press and eventually prompted Comey to make his announcement. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

FYI... Wall Street Journal did some digging into the Giuliani phone records.

 

As it turns out, the number that Slimy Schiff put in the report as the OMB office is not the number to the OMB office. Not only that, but OMB officials told WSJ that they've never spoken to RG.

 

It's quite interesting that in a bulletproof case such as this, Schiff feels the need to resort to manipulation of information. I wonder why :dunno

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
26 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

As it turns out, the number that Slimy Schiff put in the report as the OMB office is not the number to the OMB office.

 

It's quite interesting that in a bulletproof case such as this, Schiff feels the need to resort to manipulation of information. I wonder why :dunno

 

Manipulation of information, indeed. 

 

The report simply says "In addition, among these calls are contacts between Mr. Giuliani and a phone number associated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)..." 

 

“The call records obtained by the Committees identified a number that appears to be ‘associated with OMB’ based on public directories,” this official said. “As we have made clear since the report was released, we are continuing to investigate these call records as part of our ongoing work, including to assess whether that number, associated with OMB landlines, may also indicate calls received from elsewhere within the White House.”

 

26 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

Not only that, but OMB officials told WSJ that they've never spoken to RG.

 

Would they like to discuss that under oath?

 

“I really don't know -- you'd have to ask him,” Trump told reporters when asked what reason his personal lawyer would have to talk with his budget chiefs. “Sounds like something that’s not so complicated, frankly, but you’d have to ask him. No big deal.” That's not exactly a denial...

 

Rudy didn't talk to Mick Mulvaney!?! I call BS.

  • Plus1 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

FYI... Wall Street Journal did some digging into the Giuliani phone records.

 

As it turns out, the number that Slimy Schiff put in the report as the OMB office is not the number to the OMB office. Not only that, but OMB officials told WSJ that they've never spoken to RG.

 

It's quite interesting that in a bulletproof case such as this, Schiff feels the need to resort to manipulation of information. I wonder why :dunno

 

They're saying "doubts surface" because the number may or may not have been from the OMB. 

 

 

 

"Not necessarily" isn't exactly exonerating.  Nor is it worth calling Schiff "slimy" for citing this number.

 

Because even if Guiliani isn't talking to OMB, he's talking to someone at the White House (-1 seems to be where they're pointing) and that's... still not good.

Link to comment

1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

They're saying "doubts surface" because the number may or may not have been from the OMB. 

 

 

 

"Not necessarily" isn't exactly exonerating.  Nor is it worth calling Schiff "slimy" for citing this number.

 

Because even if Guiliani isn't talking to OMB, he's talking to someone at the White House (-1 seems to be where they're pointing) and that's... still not good.

 

 

1) I didn't say it's exonerating. It's just interesting how I hear from the left that this is a slam dunk and yet Schiff has to resort to a manipulation of this magnitude

 

2) This alone doesn't necessarily make Schiff slimy, but there's no shortage examples of his blatant dishonesty that qualify him for that label. 

  • Fire 1
Link to comment
1 minute ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

 

1) I didn't say it's exonerating. It's just interesting how I hear from the left that this is a slam dunk and yet Schiff has to resort to a manipulation of this magnitude

 

2) This alone doesn't necessarily make Schiff slimy, but there's no shortage examples of his blatant dishonesty that qualify him for that label. 

 

The implication is that it's exonerating. We're adults. Let's not pretend.

 

It's not a manipulation, and nothing in the article you posted claims it is. Why are you using that word?

 

Do tell all the examples of Adam Schiff being "slimy" (in a new, appropriately titled thread, please)

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, ActualCornHusker said:

1) I didn't say it's exonerating. It's just interesting how I hear from the left that this is a slam dunk and yet Schiff has to resort to a manipulation of this magnitude

 

What did he manipulate?

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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