The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[Ibanez]

6) Wawa > Sheets/RoFar/Quik Trip
7) The Taj > WaWa

Is that where you get your gluten free geodick IPAs from?

[AZGrizFan]

Or maybe it's that keeping Biden from becoming president IS in the US national interest.

1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.
2) That doesn't excuse requesting a foreign govt to interfere
3) Trump said he didn't need Russian interference in 2016 but now he needs Ukrainian help?
4) The Biden Kid has nothing to do with American foreign policy.
5) Epstein didn't kill himself

My post was (mostly) in jest, but you don't have animosity against a guy who's willing to sell out US foreign policy and obfuscate our intentions WRT Ukraine and the entire eastern bloc of Europe for a couple million dollars in bribe money for his son? And then who threatens to withhold aid until the investigator (rightfully) investigating his son and son's company gets fired at his demand? That all sounds perfectly normal to you?

[89Hen]

Would the Dems be up in arms if you substitute McConnell for Biden?

[Skjellyfetti]

[CAA Flagship]

Trump understands TV ratings.

[kalm]

Is that where you get your gluten free geodick IPAs from?

No. But they did have quite the vhs porn rental section back when it was Circle K and I bought my share of Natty Light half racks there. Now they carry booze and glass pipes.

[AZGrizFan]

Would the Dems be up in arms if you substitute McConnell for Biden?

Exactly. Or Pence for Biden?

[Ibanez]

1) That is your opinion. I don't have animosity against Biden but I think it's time for him (and Bernie, Warren, Booker, Harris) to give up on becoming POTUS.
2) That doesn't excuse requesting a foreign govt to interfere
3) Trump said he didn't need Russian interference in 2016 but now he needs Ukrainian help?
4) The Biden Kid has nothing to do with American foreign policy.
5) Epstein didn't kill himself

My post was (mostly) in jest, but you don't have animosity against a guy who's willing to sell out US foreign policy and obfuscate our intentions WRT Ukraine and the entire eastern bloc of Europe for a couple million dollars in bribe money for his son? And then who threatens to withhold aid until the investigator (rightfully) investigating his son and son's company gets fired at his demand? That all sounds perfectly normal to you?

Has any of that been verified? Any proof? I haven't seen any proof. I've been asking for about a week for someone to show some proof. I'll admit i'm wrong if there's evidence of all of that.

[GannonFan]

Trump understands TV ratings.

The more the Dems play the game the way Trump wants them to play it, the more likely he'll suck the air out of the room just as he did in the 2016 election. It's all Trump all the time. He's proving the maxim that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Heck, I don't even recall if the Dems are still running a nomination process. If they're going to respond to him every time he tweets they'll always be on the defensive.

[UNI88]

My post was (mostly) in jest, but you don't have animosity against a guy who's willing to sell out US foreign policy and obfuscate our intentions WRT Ukraine and the entire eastern bloc of Europe for a couple million dollars in bribe money for his son? And then who threatens to withhold aid until the investigator (rightfully) investigating his son and son's company gets fired at his demand? That all sounds perfectly normal to you?

Has any of that been verified? Any proof? I haven't seen any proof. I've been asking for about a week for someone to show some proof. I'll admit i'm wrong if there's evidence of all of that.

I don't think there is. The question I think needs to be answered is should what happened with Hunter and Joe be included in the Congressional investigation? The Donks are going to want to limit the scope to what Trump did. Is it valid to look in to the underlying cause of Trump/Guiliani's actions?

I also have to point out again how the two parties standards of evidence have flipped. With Hillary, Conks were all where there is smoke there is fire while Donks wanted definitive proof. Now with Trump, they've flipped their scripts.

[Skjellyfetti]

The Donks are going to want to limit the scope to what Trump did. Is it valid to look in to the underlying cause of Trump/Guiliani's actions?

The underlying cause is a separate issue and if you think it should be investigated - have a special counsel, or have a Senate committee look into it.

If Trump and Guiliani broke laws or committed impeachable offenses trying to uncover dirt on Biden - whether there is dirt or not... it has no bearing on whether they broke the law, abused power, etc. If the Biden theory is 100% factual - it doesn't make unlawful actions justified.

[kalm]

The Donks are going to want to limit the scope to what Trump did. Is it valid to look in to the underlying cause of Trump/Guiliani's actions?

The underlying cause is a separate issue and if you think it should be investigated - have a special counsel, or have a Senate committee look into it.

If Trump and Guiliani broke laws or committed impeachable offenses trying to uncover dirt on Biden - whether there is dirt or not... it has no bearing on whether they broke the law, abused power, etc. If the Biden theory is 100% factual - it doesn't make unlawful actions justified.

Wait...you mean they weren’t following protocol by sending Giuliani in as special investigative counsel?

[UNI88]

The Donks are going to want to limit the scope to what Trump did. Is it valid to look in to the underlying cause of Trump/Guiliani's actions?

The underlying cause is a separate issue and if you think it should be investigated - have a special counsel, or have a Senate committee look into it.

If Trump and Guiliani broke laws or committed impeachable offenses trying to uncover dirt on Biden - whether there is dirt or not... it has no bearing on whether they broke the law, abused power, etc. If the Biden theory is 100% factual - it doesn't make unlawful actions justified.

Is that a fact or a partisan opinion because keeping the focus on Trump is good for the Donks? Wouldn't the "impeachment isn't a court trial and doesn't follow the same rules" also apply to whether they should look at the Bidens as part of this investigation? Don't they have more latitude?

[BDKJMU]

Decide for yourself:

phpBB [video]

Yep. That pretty much sums up Day 1 for the donks..

[BDKJMU]

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...

[GannonFan]

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...

The Dems going to intimidation by Twitter - and reading out the Twitter to the person who, before the Dems read it to her, had no idea there had even been a tweet about her - is not really a strong card to play. They're muddying up the waters of impeachment by losing focus and trying to respond to everything Trump says. I don't think she was ever going to be a strong witness in this anyway - she wasn't privy to or had any knowledge whatsoever of the Biden angle to all of this - she was just an ambassador that Trump didn't like and he had her removed. Not very savvy or endearing of Trump, but not anywhere in the vicinity of impeachable. If the Dems want to impeach him for stuff he says on Twitter (which I'm sure they want to do) then they're weakening the thrust of their main argument by doing so. Again, they're letting him dictate the course of this and that's never in their advantage.

[Skjellyfetti]

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...

[UNI88]

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.

[GannonFan]

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...

They were throw ins then, basically due to not responding to Congressional subpoenas, and that was always going to be a charge in these proceedings anyway - did you honestly think, before today, that they weren't going to have an article of impeachment tied to obstruction of justice (heck, they were already considering including obstruction of justice from what they viewed in the Mueller report, which I'm sure got you all tingly with excitement).

But, despite the left (and apparently you) getting all ginned up on excitement over intimidating a witness who didn't even know she was being intimidated until she was told by Schiff, they're weakening the impact of impeachment by potentially saying, and this is how it could be paraphrased, that "Trump is mean when he uses Twitter". The horror. This is how the Dems can lose the narrative and end up strengthening Trump through a poor impeachment. I'm not voting for him anyway, but it's stuff like this that feeds right into his narrative and his base laps it up.

[Skjellyfetti]

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.

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.

[HI54UNI]

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.

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.

[Ivytalk]

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.

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

[AZGrizFan]

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.

They can't get out of their own way.

[houndawg]

Would the Dems be up in arms if you substitute McConnell for Biden?

Exactly. Or Pence for Biden?

The Republicans wouldn't.

[93henfan]

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.