Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Noxx79]

That hypothetical is assuming I would agree with your assessment of what the new Ukranian (excuse me Israeli) prosecutor did or didn't do. I don't agree with that, and neither does quite a few people in Washington.

- - - Updated - - -



Her party affiliation is completely relevant to her bloviation on something that she can't substantiate.

Still won’t answer the question. There’s only one word for someone too scared to do something.

I thought you dealt with facts. Too bad you’re deluded. I can’t do anything with someone who has no grasp on reality.

Go back to your hole. Pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

That hypothetical is assuming I would agree with your assessment of what the new Ukranian (excuse me Israeli) prosecutor did or didn't do. I don't agree with that, and neither does quite a few people in Washington.

- - - Updated - - -



Her party affiliation is completely relevant to her bloviation on something that she can't substantiate.

And thus you e proven you have no grasp on reality.

Get help. Seriously. Or get out of the country you hate so much as it’s affecting your mental state.

[Endus]

What part of that Democrat's Twitter post confirms a law to have been broken? Just seems like more open-ended accusational claptrap.

Why does her personal party matter? She's a Bush 43 nominee to the FEC, and she's always enjoyed bipartisan support.

[Noxx79]

If you think that you've accomplished something by providing a loaded hypothetical situation that assumes you correct on everything and making me have to affirm it simply by agreeing to answer to it, you're sadly mistaken about how rhetoric works.

- - - Updated - - -



Since you've devolved into nothing more than reductive flaming. I'll let the mods deal with your posting going forward.

Yet again, you refuse to answer the question. You crying to the mods does nothing. We’re down, I refuse to talk with a coward and someone who hates this country. Go back to your hole, troll.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think that you've accomplished something by providing a loaded hypothetical situation that assumes you correct on everything and making me have to affirm it simply by agreeing to answer to it, you're sadly mistaken about how rhetoric works.

- - - Updated - - -



Since you've devolved into nothing more than reductive flaming. I'll let the mods deal with your posting going forward.

- - - Updated - - -



Incorrect. The President was lawfully carrying out the duties of his office.

Liar.

He could not withhold the money.

You’re ignorant as well.

Now we’re done.

[Endus]

She is a factual Democrat, irrespective of that RINO's appointment of her.

Bush 43 is now a "RINO".

This isn't shifting goalposts. This is shipping them overseas.

[Elegiac]

Incorrect. The President was lawfully carrying out the duties of his office.

Why'd he try to cover it up, then?

[Edge-]

What part of that Democrat's Twitter post confirms a law to have been broken? Just seems like more open-ended accusational claptrap.

https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archi.../20021206.html

She was a Bush Jr. appointee, actually.

I enjoy this reflexive action to list anyone conservatives disagree with as a Democrat as if it means literally anything.

[Elegiac]

The President has an obvious problem with opposition leakers/plants in his administration and he is completely justified to hide sensitive information that would be used out of context to gridlock the government with nonsense investigations until he can route out the snakes.

So, deep state conspiracy nonsense? Okay.

Sorry....What part of these investigations are "gridlocking the government"? It's not the Democrats' fault that the GOP can't walk and chew gum. Nor is it their fault most legislation that would keep the country running is collecting dust on McConnell's desk.

[Huehuecoyotl]

Doesn't change that she's a factual Democrat with an agenda.

So evidence is irrelevant, if the person making the charge is an opponent. And anyone making a charge is, regardless of previous affiliation, an opponent. That's what your going with as the basis of ignoring any and all charges against your beloved Trump?

That would be facile from a child. But at least it makes it pretty clear what you are, and what your purpose is in posting here. Laughable to see it in somebody that is apparently a grown person. At least that's what you tell us you are. Evidence suggests otherwise.

[Elegiac]

She is a factual Democrat

Ah yes, a factual Democrat appointed by that equally as noted Democrat president George W Bush. /s

Is it really so difficult to admit that your President is in the wrong?

[wunksta]

All you have to do is prove that in the Senate.

That's implying that Republicans care about proof or the law.

[Cthulhu 2020]

At what point has any of the impeachment process impeded Trump?

Trump's own personal mental breakdowns. But that's something that's been happening since day 1. He's gotten nothing accomplished because he sits in front of Fox News all day, gets briefings presented to him with only pictures cause words are hard, briefings which he gets up and walks out on after 10 minutes because he gets bored.

The funny part hat @Sulla seems to have overlooked is that he believes that throwing everything and the kitchen sink at the president trying to get him impeached is a DEMOCRAT blueprint, when in reality it's the Republican blueprint under Obama. Remember the weekly bills of impeachment submitted by random senators and congressmen? Yeah...

The difference here being that Trump has ACTUALLY broken federal law. Abuse of power, bribery, and emoluments clause (just to name a few) all of which they have solid proof of Trump breaking. And while each individually was apparently never enough to impeach Trump, it seems Democrats are finally growing a spine and throwing all of Trump's past crimes at him. The only problem is determining whether Republicans in the Senate will have enough moral fiber to vote for removal.

Oh and guys, Sulla isn't a pedo, he just supported a pedo, saying that he'd rather have a sex offender in public office than a Democrat.

[Elegiac]

That's implying that Republicans care about proof or the law.

Pretty much. "It won't survive the Senate" isn't the ironclad defense he thinks it is when you have jurors like Graham saying they won't even read the evidence.

We wouldn't consider a criminal verdict in which the jury was fucking around remotely valid either.

[Shadowferal]

Pentagon official testifies Trump directed freeze on aid to Ukraine

[Elegiac]

Pentagon official testifies Trump directed freeze on aid to Ukraine

Welp, smoking gun. Trump ordered it himself.

[Elegiac]

There was solid evidence on Clinton, Holder, etc. Still got some stuff coming from IG Horowitz about that. Stay tuned.

None of which is remotely relevant to the current impeachment inquiry, which is why Biden won't be questioned despite McCarthy's insistence.

[Stormspellz]

There was solid evidence on Clinton, Holder, etc. Still got some stuff coming from IG Horowitz about that. Stay tuned.

Its amazing you think there is credible evidence to find on Clinton that investigation after investigation after investigation found nothing, even when being done by some of the most vile, biased and polarized people ever to hold positions of power in this country didn't find anything against their political rival.

But a whistle blower who has been corroborated by what 10 or various people at last count, on top of him admitting it on live TV, along with the other mountains of evidence. Is all a mix of deep state conspiracy, nothingburgers, and witch hunts.

and oh look at that another rat has jumped ship and flipped today...must be more fake news

"Lev Parnas, one of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s indicted associates in his months-long expedition to find dirt on Joe Biden in Ukraine, appears to have flipped on President Donald Trump and Giuliani in the ongoing impeachment investigation."

[Thekri]

There's not going to be a President Warren. I only take plausible hypotheticals seriously. She's gonna have waaaayyy too many pissed off powerful people for her to even have a chance, including some notable limousine liberals.

That isn't the point and you know it. Replace President Warren with any other liberal President. How are you going to feel, when a liberal President uses state assets to force investigations into political opponents, based on nothing but the suspicions of the President? For that matter, imagine such a President also pressuring foreign governments to open investigation into whatever Hannity has going on with Real Estate, or into any other Conservative figure that speaks out against him.

Or do you refuse to concede there will ever be another liberal president?

[Elegiac]

Or do you refuse to concede there will ever be another liberal president?

Don't say the quiet part out loud. There's a reason people like him keep insisting the US isn't a democracy.

[Stormspellz]

That isn't the point and you know it. Replace President Warren with any other liberal President. How are you going to feel, when a liberal President uses state assets to force investigations into political opponents, based on nothing but the suspicions of the President? For that matter, imagine such a President also pressuring foreign governments to open investigation into whatever Hannity has going on with Real Estate, or into any other Conservative figure that speaks out against him.

Or do you refuse to concede there will ever be another liberal president?

@Sulla

to add on to this, when the next democrat president diverts money from the military for climate change related projects? or declares guns a national emergency or the 20 other ridiculous things Trump has done that you are the cult cheered on but would be screaming about if it was a democrat

your hypocrisy and only caring about getting activist regressive judges appointed at any cost is well known.

[Edge-]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/mulvan...ssian-reaction

Under Mick Mulvaney’s leadership, the Office of Management and Budget temporarily put a hold on the delivery of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in 2017 because of concerns their arrival would upset Russia, according to former White House official Catherine Croft.

She described OMB’s objection was “highly unusual.”

So US foreign policy still largely seems dictated by a desire not to upset Russia, and non-political agencies like the OMB got involved in policy decisions rather than sticking to financial affairs.