Jump to content
knapplc

The Trump Impeachment Thread

Recommended Posts

Don't know who it is but the Republican congressman giving an interview on CSPAN right now is TRIGGERED

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am listening to Will Hurd's (R-TX) is questioning, I wonder how he and other retiring Republicans will vote. 

 

They probably still need a cush GOP lobbying job or the like, but they won't have as much Trump-induced reelection pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

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.

 

Well that's my point. Technically they don't need to prove crimes.  The pattern of unfitness includes falling in love with Kim Jung Un and cancelling joint military exercises with South Korea --- a  brazen concession Trump didn't even run by his own military. It includes withdrawing from Syria and exposing the Kurds, a pro-Putin move that, again, Trump didn't run by his own military or GOP leadership, both strongly against the move. It includes blabbing classified military secrets to the President of the Philipines, the resignation of every respected general he brought into his administration, and his hand-picked Secretary of State calling him "a f#&%ing moron." It's a pattern of lying, disinformation and backwater conspiracy theories that have become so common we almost forget it's the work of a sociopath. 

 

If you think Collusion is the brass ring -- as with the Mueller Report, or Bribery is the smoking gun, — as with Ukraine, Trump apologists merely have to establish plausible doubt according to the legal standard for a singular incident. And at the end of the day, a lot of people see nothing wrong with the President trying to strongarm some dirt on his political opponent. Most of us assume backroom power plays happen in every administration.

 

But I think people do care if the President is a habitual liar who has thrown his own people under the bus, countermanded his own military advisers, his own economic advisers, and pursued every avenue of self-interest including blatant personal financial gain. That many of these choices seem tailor-made for Vladimir Putin's agenda is the cherry on the sundae. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now attacking the Purple Heart recipient. Deplorable, anyone who does not condemn this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

It includes withdrawing from Syria and exposing the Kurds, a pro-Putin move that, again, Trump didn't run by his own military or GOP leadership, both strongly against the move.

Potentially because Ergodon was blackmailing him due to Kushner greenlighting the Khashoggi murder. That is unverified but very concerning nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honest question:  why are these witnesses different than the original Whistleblower?

 

They are coming forward, corroborating the same things, and taking the full heat and risk. If the Whistleblower is being protected for his or her safety, are these supporting whistleblowers simply braver?

  • Plus1 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Honest question:  why are these witnesses different than the original Whistleblower?

 

They are coming forward, corroborating the same things, and taking the full heat and risk. If the Whistleblower is being protected for his or her safety, are these supporting whistleblowers simply braver?

 

Witness v. Whistleblower

 

The Whistleblower's testimony is not necessary or relevant now. I'm guessing it would have been all be inadmissible hearsay anyway, if functioning under the Federal Rules of Evidence.

 

These witnesses, some under subpoena, are testifying to what they personally heard, saw, or did. Just this morning for example, Vindman testified that he was on the call, found it improper, and reported it to WH Counsel. He actually reported wrongdoing twice. Once that was shuttered, he did not go further, such as the Whistleblower did to Congress. Williams was in on the call and did not report the wrongdoing. I'm not going to call her brave for actually honoring a subpoena here. 

 

I guess there is a spectrum of bravery where each of these fall. John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney currently on the cowardly end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I knew this was always about Biden, not anti-corruption. But I guess I hadn't caught that before! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Honest question:  why are these witnesses different than the original Whistleblower?

 

They are coming forward, corroborating the same things, and taking the full heat and risk. If the Whistleblower is being protected for his or her safety, are these supporting whistleblowers simply braver?

 

 

I don’t think so. They may never have done it at all if not for the whistleblower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Potentially because Ergodon was blackmailing him due to Kushner greenlighting the Khashoggi murder. That is unverified but very concerning nonetheless

 

A crazy conspiracy theory that has the dangerous ring of truth. 

 

The list is so long it almost undermines itself.

 

Benghazi wouldn't have lasted a news cycle if it had happened under Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think so. They may never have done it at all if not for the whistleblower. 

 

Some volunteered. Some accepted the subpoena that others were allowed to refuse. All who accepted support the Whistleblowers account. 

 

Just saying the reason for the Whistleblower remaining safely anonymous is undermined a bit when presumed underlings have to answer Jim Jordan, or watch the media and internet go nuts with conspiracy theories, accusation of treason and death threats.

 

Are we to assume the Whistleblower works at a higher realm? That his or her identity would be a bombshell? How does he or she feel watching colleagues bearing the brunt of this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...