The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[Skjellyfetti]

Or maybe the House could get to work and pass USMCA and other legislation that might benefit the American people and let the D presidential candidate campaign against Trump's alleged corruption and let the voters decide whether or not to kick him out of office.

The House has a Constitutional duty to check abuses of power by the Executive. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

The entire House isn't involved in these hearings. One committee is. There is a separate group working on USMCA
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ ... up-1364562

[houndawg]

Good point. The Dems need to show that they’re actually getting something done.

They can't get out of their own way.

Four years for Benghazi - this might take a while as things drip, drip, drip out from the hearings...

[houndawg]

I agree. But, impeachment is political. There's no escaping it. It's what we're stuck with.

Maybe decent alternative would be for the House to file an impeachment complaint to the Chief Justice or SCTUS to open an investigation and he /they decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor to impanel a Grand Jury behind closed doors. Would require an amendment, of course... but, just spitballing.

Or maybe the House could get to work and pass USMCA and other legislation that might benefit the American people and let the D presidential candidate campaign against Trump's alleged corruption and let the voters decide whether or not to kick him out of office.

Theres a redwood tree full of legislation sitting on Moscow Mitch's desk.

[AZGrizFan]

They can't get out of their own way.

Four years for Benghazi - this might take a while as things drip, drip, drip out from the hearings...

Great point. An example of where aid ACTUALLY was denied. To Americans. Four of whom (including a sitting ambassador) ended up dying. THAT deserved an impeachment/firing/criminal proceedings. This? fucking child's play in comparison...

[HI54UNI]

Or maybe the House could get to work and pass USMCA and other legislation that might benefit the American people and let the D presidential candidate campaign against Trump's alleged corruption and let the voters decide whether or not to kick him out of office.

The House has a Constitutional duty to check abuses of power by the Executive. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

The entire House isn't involved in these hearings. One committee is. There is a separate group working on USMCA
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ ... up-1364562

It's November. An article from June isn't really helping your argument.

[89Hen]

Exactly. Or Pence for Biden?

The Republicans wouldn't.

So you're saying only Dems are upset because it's a Dem. Check.

[GannonFan]

Both sides are reaching.

I'm with Ibanez, this deserves a fair hearing. The problem is that I don't think the Donks want a fair hearing any more than Trump wants any hearing.

I agree. But, impeachment is political. There's no escaping it. It's what we're stuck with.

Maybe decent alternative would be for the House to file an impeachment complaint to the Chief Justice or SCTUS to open an investigation and he /they decide whether to appoint a special prosecutor to impanel a Grand Jury behind closed doors. Would require an amendment, of course... but, just spitballing.

I'm not adverse to that, per se, but the SCOTUS already has enough on their plate in terms of workload. They certainly don't have the staff to handle full-on investigative responsibilities, and besides, they don't really have the background (most don't) to be good at it either. They're judges, not the FBI.

Impeachment is always going to be political anyway, as you have the legislative branch fully in charge of the process (sure the Chief Justice presides, but he's just a figurehead, not really any power in the role in the Senate trial). And in that, it's always going to depend on the party control (or at least the extent of control). Andrew Johnson was saved by one vote because the Republicans at the time had a huge majority and could make it that close (but Johnson hadn't really committed a crime, he was just, at a basic level, a jerk). Nixon was clearly going to be removed - Dems had a good majority in the Senate and there were tons of tangible crimes Nixon and his associates had committed that meant that there would be crossover from GOP Senators. Clinton was never going to be removed because the GOP majority by itself wasn't enough to remove him and Senate Dems were not convinced that lying under oath to a grand jury was enough to remove him. And Trump's not going to be removed, within a year of an election, unless some real tangible crime gets uncovered. And even if it did (depending on how you view the Ukraine call) it may have to be a real doozy to convince the GOP Senate to dump him and give the Dems the White House for at least the next 4 years. That's the real political part of this.

[GannonFan]

They can't get out of their own way.

Four years for Benghazi - this might take a while as things drip, drip, drip out from the hearings...

Heck, the GOP might not care if that's the case - get Trump re-elected, and then they can part ways with him in his second term and it's no harm no foul, plus, and perhaps even better, they can set up Pence or whomever to be the guy who steps in, finishes the term, and gets to run with the power of being an incumbent in 2024. Of course, to the Democrats favor, most of their current candidates for President could be either dead or just that much older in 2024, so they might finally let the younger part of the party find a potential nominee.

[Ivytalk]

The House has a Constitutional duty to check abuses of power by the Executive. I'm sorry if you don't like that.

The entire House isn't involved in these hearings. One committee is. There is a separate group working on USMCA
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/ ... up-1364562

It's November. An article from June isn't really helping your argument.

Exactly. The Donks have all their eggs in the impeachment basket. Serious public policy work is out the window.

[BDKJMU]

Nixon and Clinton's articles of impeachment both included obstruction of justice for impeding the impeachment investigation against them. You're really reaching.v

I'm sure they wish they could have freely intimidated witnesses. Imagine...

So what. Impeachment doesn’t mean convicted if a crime. You yourself has stated its not a criminal trial. Nixon and Clinton weren’t found guilty of obstruction of justice. They weren’t found guilty of any crimes.

And again Trump couldn’t have intimidated her since the tweets were as she was testifying and she wasn’t on twitter at the time. Then Shifty Shift had to read the tweets and tell her, “Did you know you were being intimidated?” Therefore no witness intimidation = no obstruction, even if it were a criminal proceeding, which as you have stated multiple times, it isn’t. You’re the one reaching.. Trump just trolled Shift, who is obviously watching Trumps twitter at the same time the donks are trying to conduct this circus, and Shift fell for it hook, line, sinker..

Trump should tweet about everyone testifying as they are testifying. Then Shifty Shift, and the rest of the donks, who can’t control their TDS, can interrupt the witnesses to read the tweets during the hearings as they occur. Keeps the donks reacting to Trump. Will make this circus an even bigger circus

[CAA Flagship]

Nixon and Clinton's articles of impeachment both included obstruction of justice for impeding the impeachment investigation against them. You're really reaching.v

I'm sure they wish they could have freely intimidated witnesses. Imagine...

So what. Impeachment doesn’t mean convicted if a crime. You yourself has stated its not a criminal trial. Nixon and Clinton weren’t found guilty of obstruction of justice. They weren’t found guilty of any crimes.

And again Trump couldn’t have intimidated her since the tweets were as she was testifying and she wasn’t on twitter at the time. Then Shifty Shift had to read the tweets and tell her, “Did you know you were being intimidated?” Therefore no witness intimidation = no obstruction, even if it were a criminal proceeding, which as you have stated multiple times, it isn’t. You’re the one reaching.. Trump just trolled Shift, who is obviously watching Trumps twitter at the same time the donks are trying to conduct this circus, and Shift fell for it hook, line, sinker..

Trump should tweet about everyone testifying as they are testifying. Then Shifty Shift, and the rest of the donks, who can’t control their TDS, can interrupt the witnesses to read the tweets during the hearings as they occur. Keeps the donks reacting to Trump. Will make this circus an even bigger circus

To be fair, I can see the "intimidation" issue not being on her, but future witnesses. But that's nothing but a divot on a golf course. It's not going to change anything.

[SeattleGriz]

Color me surprised.

Contrary to her opening statement, former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch later admitted under questioning that Obama-Biden officials prepared her to answer questions about Hunter Biden's role on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma during her 2016 confirmation hearing.

Yeah. No big deal. This sort of shenanigans was above the Obama administration.

[JohnStOnge]

Or maybe the House could get to work and pass USMCA and other legislation that might benefit the American people and let the D presidential candidate campaign against Trump's alleged corruption and let the voters decide whether or not to kick him out of office.

Good point. The Dems need to show that they’re actually getting something done.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-mete ... peachment/

House members have passed or agreed to 389 bills and 151 resolutions since January, when Democrats took control. But McConnell has left many untouched in the GOP-led Senate, having vowed to block their progressive policies as the "grim reaper" to their bills on issues such as election security and background checks.

It's not that they haven't been doing anything else. It's that we have divided government.

At this point in history what we need is to get the Republicans out of the way. Eliminate the Republican Party as a factor and the country will progress.

Then maybe we can talk about forming a conservative Party that has some semblance of integrity and go from there.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW can we get real? There is no doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden thing because it's in the call summary HE released. The only somewhat reasonable question relates to what his motivation was.

And what kind of idiot would honestly believe that his motivation was some general interest in Ukraine corruption?

How stupid would you have to be to believe that?

[UNI88]

BTW can we get real? There is no doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden thing because it's in the call summary HE released. The only somewhat reasonable question relates to what his motivation was.

And what kind of idiot would honestly believe that his motivation was some general interest in Ukraine corruption?

How stupid would you have to be to believe that?

Almost as stupid as someone believing that Hillary didn't know that she couldn't use a private email server or that her motivation was benign.

BRAWKKKKKK!

[SeattleGriz]

BTW can we get real? There is no doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden thing because it's in the call summary HE released. The only somewhat reasonable question relates to what his motivation was.

And what kind of idiot would honestly believe that his motivation was some general interest in Ukraine corruption?

How stupid would you have to be to believe that?

You'd have to be pretty stupid. But you'd also have to be pretty stupid to believe Trump wasn't going to pass up a chance once Biden told his story.

Trump now gets to use the Democrat's tactics. You can't question his ethics, he's looking into rooting out corruption. Just like you can't question Blasey Ford and just like you can't question a whistleblower. Same playbook. You have to take their claims at face value.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW can we get real? There is no doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden thing because it's in the call summary HE released. The only somewhat reasonable question relates to what his motivation was.

And what kind of idiot would honestly believe that his motivation was some general interest in Ukraine corruption?

How stupid would you have to be to believe that?

Almost as stupid as someone believing that Hillary didn't know that she couldn't use a private email server or that her motivation was benign.

BRAWKKKKKK!

I don't think her motivation was benign but I think it's close to self evident that she didn't know she could use a private e mail server. I also am somewhat familiar with what was going on at that time with respect to Federal rules on that sort of thing and I think we as a country were in transition.

[JohnStOnge]

BTW can we get real? There is no doubt that Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate the Biden thing because it's in the call summary HE released. The only somewhat reasonable question relates to what his motivation was.

And what kind of idiot would honestly believe that his motivation was some general interest in Ukraine corruption?

How stupid would you have to be to believe that?

You'd have to be pretty stupid. But you'd also have to be pretty stupid to believe Trump wasn't going to pass up a chance once Biden told his story.

Trump now gets to use the Democrat's tactics. You can't question his ethics, he's looking into rooting out corruption. Just like you can't question Blasey Ford and just like you can't question a whistleblower. Same playbook. You have to take their claims at face value.

Sure you can question his ethics because it' s obvious that he wasn't interested in rooting out corruption. It's not the same as what Biden did at all because Biden was a Vice President relaying the position of the US President. Biden was relaying the US Administration's position with respect to a prosecutor who EVERYBODY in the west agreed was corrupt. Trump was going after a political rival when there was no credible evidence at all that the political rival did anything wrong. There's no equivalency at all.

[UNI88]

Almost as stupid as someone believing that Hillary didn't know that she couldn't use a private email server or that her motivation was benign.

BRAWKKKKKK!

I don't think her motivation was benign but I think it's close to self evident that she didn't know she could use a private e mail server. I also am somewhat familiar with what was going on at that time with respect to Federal rules on that sort of thing and I think we as a country were in transition.

[JohnStOnge]

I don't think her motivation was benign but I think it's close to self evident that she didn't know she could use a private e mail server. I also am somewhat familiar with what was going on at that time with respect to Federal rules on that sort of thing and I think we as a country were in transition.

There was a time when Federal employees could use private e mail as much as they wanted to. That started to change about the time that Clinton's private e mail server thing happened. In one sense I agree that it was a stupid move and it was associated with a desire to hide things. But in another sense I think it's understandable that she thought she could get by OK with i.

[SeattleGriz]

You'd have to be pretty stupid. But you'd also have to be pretty stupid to believe Trump wasn't going to pass up a chance once Biden told his story.

Trump now gets to use the Democrat's tactics. You can't question his ethics, he's looking into rooting out corruption. Just like you can't question Blasey Ford and just like you can't question a whistleblower. Same playbook. You have to take their claims at face value.

Sure you can question his ethics because it' s obvious that he wasn't interested in rooting out corruption. It's not the same as what Biden did at all because Biden was a Vice President relaying the position of the US President. Biden was relaying the US Administration's position with respect to a prosecutor who EVERYBODY in the west agreed was corrupt. Trump was going after a political rival when there was no credible evidence at all that the political rival did anything wrong. There's no equivalency at all.

I see. Twisting other nation's arms is fine with you, as long as you agree.

[Ibanez]

Trump understands TV ratings.

Yep. Donks point out right and left that impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding. Then how can Trump’s tweet be obstruction of justice if it’s not a criminal proceeding?

And Trump tweeted as she was giving her deposition, so unless she was on literally on twitter at the same time she was giving her deposition, she couldn’t have been intimidated...

You’re just being obtuse and obviously ignorant how our impeachment process works. What part of “senate trial” do you either not know or understand?

And saying she couldn’t have been intimated is pretty fucking stupid and ignorant. Does that mean I can rob you as long as you aren’t aware of it? Please, remove your head from your ass and be objective.




And yes - I have been drinking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Nixon and Clinton's articles of impeachment both included obstruction of justice for impeding the impeachment investigation against them. You're really reaching.v

I'm sure they wish they could have freely intimidated witnesses. Imagine...

Both sides are reaching.

I'm with Ibanez, this deserves a fair hearing. The problem is that I don't think the Donks want a fair hearing any more than Trump wants any hearing.

That’s impossible in today’s environment. Both sides are so polarized that of Satan was a Democrat, the DNC would stand by him tooth and nail. Same for the Republicans.

We are too polarized and convinced that your chosen side is right and the other is evil/bad/want to destroy our republic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Meanwhile, on Wall St...

Dow 28,000+
S&P 3120+
Nasdaq 8540+

A record for you, and a record for you, and a record for you too! The only thing that can stop this is a Democrat in the White House.

This. I’m up 14% this year and just rebalanced my portfolio


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

Yep. Donks point out right and left that impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding. Then how can Trump’s tweet be obstruction of justice if it’s not a criminal proceeding?

And Trump tweeted as she was giving her deposition, so unless she was on literally on twitter at the same time she was giving her deposition, she couldn’t have been intimidated...

You’re just being obtuse and obviously ignorant how our impeachment process works. What part of “senate trial” do you either not know or understand?

And saying she couldn’t have been intimated is pretty fucking stupid and ignorant. Does that mean I can rob you as long as you aren’t aware of it? Please, remove your head from your ass and be objective.




And yes - I have been drinking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pussy