The Impeachment Thread

[Grand Vol]

Indeed it is. It is also wrong a lot too.

And I present Michael Moore.

 

[Grand Vol]

The timing of when the military aid to the Ukraine was withheld (with a ridiculous excuse given as to why, after the fact) in conjunction with what we can see in the transcript of the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky, should serve as sufficient proof to a reasonable and objective person as to what Trump was doing. If you are of a mind to believe the allegations against Biden (absent proof), then this really shouldn't require much of a leap at all for you. However, I will concede that it's another instance of where you see whatever you want to see... depending on your bias. Nobody is objective anymore.

So, no direct tie to the phone call?

 

[zeppelin128]

And I present Michael Moore.

He's probably wrong about this too. Biden doesn't have the baggage that Hillary had. I mean, Biden has baggage, but not thirty years worth of relentless scrutiny that Hillary had. Biden isn't getting the "lock her up" cult chant yet. I'm sure it is coming to a Lord Red Hat rally soon.

 

[BowlBrother85]

So, no direct tie to the phone call?

Not yet anyway... are we holding the standard of "direct ties" to the Biden allegations as well? Because there has been an awful lot of "connecting dots" and conjecture going on with that as well...

 

[Orangeburst]

Not yet anyway... are we holding the standard of "direct ties" to the Biden allegations as well? Because there has been an awful lot of "connecting dots" and conjecture going on with that as well...

Why you running away from my question?

"When Biden is no longer a candidate, will it be acceptable for Trump to offer a quid pro quo with Ukraine?"

 

[Velo Vol]

They definitely had the A-team working on this.

 

[Grand Vol]

He's probably wrong about this too. Biden doesn't have the baggage that Hillary had. I mean, Biden has baggage, but not thirty years worth of relentless scrutiny that Hillary had. Biden isn't getting the "lock her up" cult chant yet. I'm sure it is coming to a Lord Red Hat rally soon.

I think it greatly depends on your definition of "baggage." I'd bet Biden has some skeletons in the closet just like all politicians do.

I can understand Biden not running in 2016 because of the (somewhat) recent death of his son. That's going to take an emotional toll on him so he might not have been in the right mind for 20 hour a day, seven days a weeks campaign schedule. Nobody will ever fault that.

However, there was always rumors the DNC (or Hillary, which amounted to the same thing at the time) had something on Biden to get him not to run. That it was "her turn" and he shouldn't run. I think he would have run away easily with the nomination then because of being able to ride the coattails of Obama. But he didn't run and the public reason was his son's death. I can accept and respect that, but I wouldn't put it past the Clinton Crime Syndicate to have gone after Biden behind the scenes.

Regardless, Moore does have a point. Biden really isn't "exciting" enough for the base just like Hillary wasn't. Obama had a youthful exuberance that made him an attractive candidate, but Joe? He's not really "exciting."

 

[GAVol]

It wont hurt at all. People realize this is Trump and Rudy grasping at straws.

You're kidding yourself. It's at least worth a point or two.

 

[RockyTop85]

The contents weren't in the NYT. The alleged contents were in the NYT brought to them by "sources."

Obviously, sources have been really successful so far...

They actually have. The part that hasn’t been successful is people doing what you’re doing and running beyond what those sources tell them.

 

[VolnJC]

O

The timing of when the military aid to the Ukraine was withheld (with a ridiculous excuse given as to why, after the fact) in conjunction with what we can see in the transcript of the July 25th phone call between Trump and Zelensky, should serve as sufficient proof to a reasonable and objective person as to what Trump was doing. If you are of a mind to believe the allegations against Biden (absent proof), then this really shouldn't require much of a leap at all for you. However, I will concede that it's another instance of where you see whatever you want to see... depending on your bias. Nobody is objective anymore.

Or it could be like President Trump said..because we had given alot and it was time for other countries to step up...Sen. Inhofe mentioned this in an oped from April as he was advocating to give more to help protect Ukraine from Russia
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-from-pelosi-and-schiffs-garbage-allegations/

 

[Grand Vol]

They actually have. The part that hasn’t been successful is people doing what you’re doing and running beyond what those sources tell them.

So, an article in a newspaper is grounds to file an impeachment inquiry? Congress should have launched an impeachment inquiry of Obama because Breitbart had articles claiming he wasn't a US citizen?

Before you invoke Watergate, don't. Reporters back then actually had standards and cross referenced the hell out of their articles before going to print. Reporters these days run with 4Chan posts as the truth.

 

[RockyTop85]

@RockyTop85 @lawgator1

Let's just assume based on my previous post that Pelosi didn't know a thing and launched a formal impeachment inquiry based on rumors and speculation from "sources." Does that fall into the Maxine Waters line of thinking "we have to impeach to determine the crime"? Because you both, as lawyers, know you cannot take something to court (and an impeachment is a court proceeding) without hard evidence of a crime. What's probable cause again?

A reasonable belief a crime was committed, a specific person committed the crime and the instruments used in the crime are in a particular place.

You cannot used supposition nor a "hunch" for probable cause. Especially not when you're drawing up impeachment for the President of the United States. You can argue it's not a formal "trial" but you damn well know it's the highest trial we ever hold in our nation.

Pelosi did NOT show she had sufficient probable cause to initiate such an inquiry unless she knew in advance she had something. If she knew something weeks in advance and did nothing, how's that going to look? If she was using rumors and speculation to launch an impeachment inquiry, how's that going to look?

For Pete's sake, why aren't you two up in arms over this blatant abuse of the Constitution and legal system?

I applaud your passion but you’re trying to create this amalgamation of Criminal Law and impeachment procedures, like y’all did with Kavanaugh. This isn’t a criminal trial.

Even if it were, Donald Trump already got exposed as having every possible procedural advantage in the mueller investigation (which made probable cause, IMO).

Andrew Johnson got impeached just for being less of a dick than Trump. Nixon was about to get impeached for obstructing less than Trump. It’s just not a criminal process and I’ve got no sympathy for a guy who skated on a criminal process and the very next day goes and does the exact thing he was accused of.

 

[Grand Vol]

I applaud your passion but you’re trying to create this amalgamation of Criminal Law and impeachment procedures, like y’all did with Kavanaugh. This isn’t a criminal trial.

Even if it were, Donald Trump already got exposed as having every possible procedural advantage in the mueller investigation (which made probable cause, IMO).

Andrew Johnson got impeached just for being less of a dick than Trump. Nixon was about to get impeached for obstructing less than Trump. It’s just not a criminal process and I’ve got no sympathy for a guy who skated on a criminal process and the very next day goes and does the exact thing he was accused of.

I applaud your attempts to show how this isn't a criminal matter. Which technically, it isn't.

However, an impeachment is a trial, regardless of any other way you try to reason it. And it's seriously being mishandled.

 

[Grand Vol]

I applaud your passion but you’re trying to create this amalgamation of Criminal Law and impeachment procedures, like y’all did with Kavanaugh. This isn’t a criminal trial.

Even if it were, Donald Trump already got exposed as having every possible procedural advantage in the mueller investigation (which made probable cause, IMO).

Andrew Johnson got impeached just for being less of a dick than Trump. Nixon was about to get impeached for obstructing less than Trump. It’s just not a criminal process and I’ve got no sympathy for a guy who skated on a criminal process and the very next day goes and does the exact thing he was accused of.

And one more thing?

Good luck trying to prove that "high crimes and misdemeanors" portion of impeachment.

 

[BowlBrother85]

O

Or it could be like President Trump said..because we had given alot and it was time for other countries to step up...Sen. Inhofe mentioned this in an oped from April as he was advocating to give more to help protect Ukraine from Russia
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/20...-from-pelosi-and-schiffs-garbage-allegations/

That is ridiculous because it was not commonly known at the time that the funds had been withheld. If the point was to send a message to other countries, then it would have been made public. The bottom line is those funds had already been approved by Congress. Trump's temporary hold on them was about leverage. "I would like you to do us a favor, though." Yeah, that ominous line from the July 25th transcript. Honestly, who do you think Trump was referring to with his use of the word "us"? Was he talking about the United States, or was he talking about the 2020 Trump reelection campaign? I'll answer it for you. The point of this phone call was to help his campaign.

Once again, we see a conservative willing to give Trump a pretty significant benefit of the doubt over a serious charge, that you would never give to a Democrat running against him... and nobody reads those links from the Gateway Pundit - if you know anything about their history and who works there and has worked there in the past (Jacob Wohl). The sources tonight have been weak.

 

[Grand Vol]

Once again, we see a conservative willing to give Trump a pretty significant benefit of the doubt over a serious charge, that you would never give to a Democrat running against him.

Yeah, because the media would be all over a Democrat that did something like that.

Right...

 

[zeppelin128]

I think it greatly depends on your definition of "baggage." I'd bet Biden has some skeletons in the closet just like all politicians do.

I can understand Biden not running in 2016 because of the (somewhat) recent death of his son. That's going to take an emotional toll on him so he might not have been in the right mind for 20 hour a day, seven days a weeks campaign schedule. Nobody will ever fault that.

However, there was always rumors the DNC (or Hillary, which amounted to the same thing at the time) had something on Biden to get him not to run. That it was "her turn" and he shouldn't run. I think he would have run away easily with the nomination then because of being able to ride the coattails of Obama. But he didn't run and the public reason was his son's death. I can accept and respect that, but I wouldn't put it past the Clinton Crime Syndicate to have gone after Biden behind the scenes.

Regardless, Moore does have a point. Biden really isn't "exciting" enough for the base just like Hillary wasn't. Obama had a youthful exuberance that made him an attractive candidate, but Joe? He's not really "exciting."

I don't think it was some vast Clinton conspiracy in 2016. Biden was obviously torn up about the death of his son, you could see it in the interviews he gave. He just wasn't ready emotionally to take the plunge into being a nominee. And there is nothing wrong with that. You aren't supposed to bury your kids.

As to Moore, he is right. Biden doesn't excite anyone. And he won't. But he doesn't have the years of collective nonsense attacks against him that weighted down Hillary. And he has the "never Trump" thing working for him. Nobody is excited about him. Many think he is the best option to beat Trump. So he's the front runner. Above all else, Democrats want Trump defeated soundly at the ballot box. They think Biden is the best chance at that.

There are other options that fit the bill of the Obama type rise experienced in 2007. Someone that is exuberant, hopeful, intelligent, progressive, and pragmatic. Someone that could build the same coalition that catapulted Obama to the White House. Someone with hundreds of pages of policy proposals, meticulously studied and verified. Someone that can actually lead people, instead of divide them for personal gain.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yes, it did. Trump withheld hundreds of millions in military aid to the Ukraine just days prior to July 25th. There was no reason for that. Trump has since tried to spin it, that it was because he wanted to force other countries to help the Ukraine... but that is ridiculous. It was not known by any other country at the time that those funds had been withheld. Congress had already approved those funds. That was leverage.

Do you know who didn't know he was withholding funds? The Ukraine. Ergo, the pressure, by definition, didn't happen. It's **** like this that's the reason no one takes any of you seriously.

 

[Grand Vol]

I don't think it was some vast Clinton conspiracy in 2016. Biden was obviously torn up about the death of his son, you could see it in the interviews he gave. He just wasn't ready emotionally to take the plunge into being a nominee. And there is nothing wrong with that. You aren't supposed to bury your kids.

As to Moore, he is right. Biden doesn't excite anyone. And he won't. But he doesn't have the years of collective nonsense attacks against him that weighted down Hillary. And he has the "never Trump" thing working for him. Nobody is excited about him. Many think he is the best option to beat Trump. So he's the front runner. Above all else, Democrats want Trump defeated soundly at the ballot box. They think Biden is the best chance at that.

There are other options that fit the bill of the Obama type rise experienced in 2007. Someone that is exuberant, hopeful, intelligent, progressive, and pragmatic. Someone that could build the same coalition that catapulted Obama to the White House. Someone with hundreds of pages of policy proposals, meticulously studied and verified. Someone that can actually lead people, instead of divide them for personal gain.

I do beg to differ. There was a vast Clinton conspiracy in 2016 to make her and only her the nominee.

Until Bernie made waves...but that didn't end well.

Anyway, you cannot say there was no "conspiracy" within the DNC to push Hillary to the forefront. There is more than enough evidence to prove that was the case. Now, whether it involved Biden is another matter.

 

[AM64]

I'm trying to come up with an analogy of what's been happening.

Imagine a warehouse fire breaks out at night. A passerby calls the fire department to come put it out.

The next morning the town alternative newspaper begins printing a series of stories on the incident. But not about the fire itself-- about the passerby.

• What about this passerby? Was he authorized to use the phone he made the call on?
• Did the passerby actually see flames when he called? Or did he only smell smoke?
• Did the passerby make the call himself? Or did someone else dial the number?
• Did the passerby call 911? Or did he try to call the fire station first?

Anything but discuss, you know, the damage the fire actually did. It's really bizarre.

If a warehouse catches fire in the night and no one sees it, no one hears anything strange, no one reports it, did it really burn? Thinking of the old "silent" tree falling in the woods thing. You see any number of previous presidents may have had similar calls ... this could even be the norm for all we know, but it's Trump, soooo .... At least Trump didn't (reportedly anyway) state he'd have more flexibility perhaps for payback in a couple of years.

 

[Septic]

Not going to fall for your attempts this evening. You forgot who I am that quickly?

Nah, you missed me, I know.

An attempt at what? I just pointed out a fact while agreeing with you. A transcript implies it was a verbatim documentation of the conversation, it wasn't.

Its true though, I did miss you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm sorry but the allegations against Joe Biden have not been proven. There just isn't anything there.

And **** like this after the previous post i quoted. The hypocrisy is palpable.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Do you know who didn't know he was withholding funds? The Ukraine. Ergo, the pressure, by definition, didn't happen. It's **** like this that's the reason no one takes any of you seriously.

The point is the funds were withheld and the explanation given doesn't make any sense. Why were the funds withheld?

"I need you to do us a favor, though." while Trump was also mentioning how he felt the Ukraine needed to reciprocate the aid from the United States. It really doesn't take much surmising to see what Trump was doing on that call with Zelensky.

 

[Grand Vol]

Its true though, I did miss you.

 

[Obsessed]

The point is the funds were withheld and the explanation given doesn't make any sense. Why were the funds withheld?

"I need you to do us a favor, though." while Trump was also mentioning how he felt the Ukraine needed to reciprocate the aid from the United States. It really doesn't take much surmising to see what Trump was doing on that call with Zelensky.

He said he looked forward to BUYING javelins....
Had nothing to do with with-holding money.