Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Edge-]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

Individual Democrats, yes. Al Green has been hot on impeachment for years.

And it's gone nowhere, because there wasn't real Democratic support for it and Nancy Pelosi refused to back it as there wasn't grounds for it.

Do I need to start digging up the dozens of times Pelosi rebuffed pushes/questions about impeachment since she regained the Speaker position?

[Kujako]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. When you deliberately misrepresent an opinion as a fact, you are lying.

[cubby]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

You're a liar because you're lying, not just expressing opinions. Trumpkins have had a difficult time with word definitions lately.... It's not an insult, it's you finding out you're not only wrong, but you're objectively wrong, which is what a lie constitutes.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

Wrong again. That's not the Democrats. That's Al Green. If you feel otherwise, then all GOP Congresspersons are corrupt.

[Powerogue]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

"“With those things in mind and with the president’s behavior before us, firing Mr. Comey who was investigating the intrusion of Russia into his campaign, our election, that was something that was not to be tolerated. And the president has continued to try to thwart the efforts of Congress to investigate with Mr. Mueller. The president, by and through his White House counsel, tried to get this done again to deal with Mr. Mueller to extricate him, to remove him from the process.”"

Read your own goddamn sources, at the very least. That sounds conspicuously like they were considering impeachment because it looked like he was already attempting criminal behavior before even in office. Still not "we don't like him" but "it looks like he's doing something illegal, it would be immoral to NOT to do something about that."

[Endus]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

When your "opinion" is directly contradicted by the facts of the issue, you're either mistaken and unable to see it, or you're deliberately lying (it's cute that you cut out the majority of my post presuming the former, in your case, btw).

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

This is also false.

Some Democrats made noises about wanting to find grounds to impeach. Some filed proceedings that went nowhere. The Democrats as a party were not pursuing impeachment until the one successful impeachment proceeding that just wrapped up last year.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

Where he explicitly states it was the facts of Trump's conduct during that campaign that raised eyebrows and made impeachment seem like it would be necessary, if he were elected?

You're still twisting words and facts beyond reason. That you're pulling from Ben Shapiro's garbage propaganda site doesn't help your case.

[cubby]

Pelosi and the ever-brilliant Democratic leadership are citing some interesting reasons for delaying the Articles of Impeachment delivery to the Senate. Apparently, once they are delivered, the Senate must take up the issue immediately, and Pelosi is concerned that other matters need resolution before the country can focus on Trump's felonies. Country before party, again.

On a related separate note, I figured out a way for the House to hold the Articles until March, after the Senatorial primaries.

Pelosi has already leaked that there may be a third or fourth Article coming from the House, depending on Trump's finances (and another item that is currently escaping my brain). Pelosi could argue very effectively that she doesn't want to upset the Senate any more than necessary, with two separate trials. By waiting until the Third and Fourth Article's are addressed, she can present a full and complete Impeachment to the Senate, for them to take up in Trial.

And that gets us to March.

[Daelak]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

Because he refused to divest himself from his businesses which are profiting off of the federal government. A violation of the emoluments clause to a T. There is also an investigation into money laundering through his inauguration committee that received over $100 million dollars from sources unknown to the public. He violated the constitution the day he said he wouldn't abide by it. It's not about hatred, it's about breaking the law.

[cubby]

The other issue that I couldn't remember was more damning emails from the Executive that clarifies the Ukraine and other corruption re election graft.

“This is working beautifully for her, and for the country,” says Norm Ornstein, a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “In the weeks since the House voted for Impeachment, there have been more damning emails, and there’s no reason to believe we have seen the end of it.”

[Edge-]

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...broke-the-law/

So we have a lot of redacted DoJ emails about the Ukrainian aide being held up.

And apparently a site got a look at the unredacted emails, and the redactions were to remove comments from the DoJ expressing concerns over the legality of the hold on the aide, pointing out that while withholding aide is legal there are processes to go through including informing Congress that legally mandated aide is being withheld.

[cubby]

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...broke-the-law/

So we have a lot of redacted DoJ emails about the Ukrainian aide being held up.

And apparently a site got a look at the unredacted emails, and the redactions were to remove comments from the DoJ expressing concerns over the legality of the hold on the aide, pointing out that while withholding aide is legal there are processes to go through including informing Congress that legally mandated aide is being withheld.

Whoa. That would be pretty damning if the DoJ's own internal team found legal issues with Trump's actions. Not to mention that the DoJ is now covering up illegal behavior by Trump. It's going to take decades to unravel the litany of crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

[Edge-]

Whoa. That would be pretty damning if the DoJ's own internal team found legal issues with Trump's actions. Not to mention that the DoJ is now covering up illegal behavior by Trump. It's going to take decades to unravel the litany of crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

Bill Barr will forever leave a stain on the DoJ, damaging its reputation and making it a purely political office working for the president, not the American people.

That he was ever approved to begin with is infuriating, and that he continues to serve despite his myriad conflicts of interest and ethical issues (dropping $30K+ on Trump properties for a party, which is a gross conflict of interest and not remotely right) is maddening.

Whoever takes over next is going to have a hell of a lot of investigating and cleanup to do across all agencies. I don't envy them or the staffers that will have to undertake this work, and can only hope they can bring back some of the longtime staff who have since left/been fired so that they can get things back in order.

[MasterK]

Bill Barr will forever leave a stain on the DoJ, damaging its reputation and making it a purely political office working for the president, not the American people.

That he was ever approved to begin with is infuriating, and that he continues to serve despite his myriad conflicts of interest and ethical issues (dropping $30K+ on Trump properties for a party, which is a gross conflict of interest and not remotely right) is maddening.

Whoever takes over next is going to have a hell of a lot of investigating and cleanup to do across all agencies. I don't envy them or the staffers that will have to undertake this work, and can only hope they can bring back some of the longtime staff who have since left/been fired so that they can get things back in order.

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

[Machismo]

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

I look forward to you being able to produce evidence of her pushing slander, conspiracy theories, and her being wrong "most of the time" in those accusations.

[MasterK]

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

I look forward to you being able to produce evidence of her pushing slander, conspiracy theories, and her being wrong "most of the time" in those accusations.

Check your own posts... Too funny the only thing you can do is talking about "brand-new account" which is against forum rules anyway.

[Machismo]

Check your own posts...

That doesn't make any sense, you just made multiple accusations, and cannot seem to back them up with evidence.

For a guy with only 94 posts, this seems to be happening a lot with you.

[Edge-]

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories?

This is none of the above. This is criticism.

Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give.

Somehow I don't think Bill Barr reads the MMO-Champion forums, so I'm not sure how I'm "abusing" him in the slightest.

It has nothing to do with "serving my needs" and everything to do with his behavior that's been criticized from both sides of the isle. Most Republicans in Congress love him because he acts like Trump's personal attorney.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/u...r-critics.html

Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with.

1. His pre-Mueller Report press conference. The one where he mislead the public on the contents of the report to the point where Mueller sent him a note critical of his handling of it.
2. His arguments for expansive executive power that functionally would make a president an unaccountable despot.
3. His $30K+ buyout of rooms for a holiday party at a Trump property. The AG should never, ever, be spending money at any establishment owned by or associated with the POTUS. That's a clear conflict of interest, as the AG is the top lawyer for the American people, not the president.

[MasterK]

This is none of the above. This is criticism.



Somehow I don't think Bill Barr reads the MMO-Champion forums, so I'm not sure how I'm "abusing" him in the slightest.

It has nothing to do with "serving my needs" and everything to do with his behavior that's been criticized from both sides of the isle. Most Republicans in Congress love him because he acts like Trump's personal attorney.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/u...r-critics.html



1. His pre-Mueller Report press conference. The one where he mislead the public on the contents of the report to the point where Mueller sent him a note critical of his handling of it.
2. His arguments for expansive executive power that functionally would make a president an unaccountable despot.
3. His $30K+ buyout of rooms for a holiday party at a Trump property. The AG should never, ever, be spending money at any establishment owned by or associated with the POTUS. That's a clear conflict of interest, as the AG is the top lawyer for the American people, not the president.

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

-edit- You have been long enough a moderator that you know there was a time that attacks on public persons and the use of belittling terms (at that time Putanista, now Trumphadi and worse) was a reason for an infraction?

[Machismo]

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, it is a conflict of interest to be paying money to the President.

You have not shown any evidence that points to her comments being slanderous or conspiracy theories.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

-edit- You have been long enough a moderator that you know there was a time that attacks on public persons and the use of (at that time Putanista, now Trumphadis and worse) was a reason for an infraction?

How would you know how long she's been a moderator, you are brand new here. How would you know about those supposed old rules?

[Edge-]

1. Correct.About the way he handled it, not the contents.

Both. He misrepresented the contents of it, which is what caused Mueller to write the letter to him.

2. A personal opinion. Ok...

Yes, a personal opinion. Because that's what my disagreements with him are based off of. This is all my personal opinion/criticism.

3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

By any measure.

This isn't about a store "supporting a party", this is about him spending tens of thousands at a business owned by his "boss", whom he doesn't actually directly work for (he works for the American people). Between this and the previously mention issues, it further gives the appearance that he think he only works for Trump and is seeking to curry favor.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/bi...s-of-interest/

[MasterK]

Both. He misrepresented the contents of it, which is what caused Mueller to write the letter to him.



Yes, a personal opinion. Because that's what my disagreements with him are based off of. This is all my personal opinion/criticism.



By any measure.

This isn't about a store "supporting a party", this is about him spending tens of thousands at a business owned by his "boss", whom he doesn't actually directly work for (he works for the American people). Between this and the previously mention issues, it further gives the appearance that he think he only works for Trump and is seeking to curry favor.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/bi...s-of-interest/

Strange, he never misrepresented it. Maybe to the letter, but the general gist was correct. And if you think differently, please show me some proof.

If he is not actually directly working for Trump, how can it be a conflict of interest? Again, you see things you want to see.

And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.