The Impeachment Thread

#6,129
#6,129
AM64 said:
What's impeachable? As a lawyer, you should be familiar with "shall" and "will" and the concept of enforceable language. When is suggesting the same a formally requesting?
Click to expand...
For the record, the word that Donald Trump used was "should". Trump said, "....They should investigate the Bidens..."

Should: verb

1) Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

2) Used to indicate what is probable.

You can split hairs all you want to... That was an incredibly stupid thing to say in that moment, especially considering the circumstances.
 
#6,130
#6,130
Orangeburst65 said:
When would Biden lose immunity from investigation? Ever?
Click to expand...
He doesn’t have immunity from investigation.

The president has a conflict of interest with respect to investigations involving presidential candidates. Do you disagree with that?

There can be an investigation. The president cannot be involved.

Just like the US can tell Ukraine to tell their chief prosecutor to get ****ed, Joe Biden shouldn’t have been the one to do it.
 
#6,133
#6,133
BowlBrother85 said:
For the record, the word that Donald Trump used was "should". Trump said, "....They should investigate the Bidens..."

Should: verb

1) Used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.

2) Used to indicate what is probable.

You can split hairs all you want to... That was an incredibly stupid thing to say in that moment, especially considering the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Obviously, you've never worked in the world of developing and writing codes and standards.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1, VolStrom, NorthDallas40 and 2 others
#6,138
#6,138
BowlBrother85 said:
Obviously, you want to split hairs over linguistics... because you would defend Trump for literally anything.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I don't like Trump - never have, and I can't actually see that changing. I do, however, like things he has done as president even if I'm intolerant of his "presence" as president. I don't want to actually see him or hear him and I certainly don't do or agree with twitter. It's simply the fact that he isn't you or your kind that makes Trump tolerable. It's also the fact that he's too undiplomatic and will a spade a spade, and that's refreshing in the world of politics. I sincerely hope he's as ruthless about going after your side as your side has been about going after him. If he actually manages to uncover the criminal behavior in congress and other parts of DC, that would actually change his favorability rating. What you fail to realize is that Trump buys and sells for a living whereas congress is bought and sold for a living.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 0nelilreb, hjeagle1vol, RavinDave and 6 others
#6,139
#6,139
RockyTop85 said:
I said Trump is throwing gasoline on a grease fire in your kitchen and everything you’ve said in response amounts to: “well but there was already a fire.” That’s not realistic. That’s asinine. That’s changing the subject to avoid having to reconcile his behavior with your other beliefs. You started with a But Obama* and now it’s a whatabout the media.

I’m starting to think you guys have some mild psychological disorder. You want to fit in with your tribe so you pretend to share all of their beliefs, but it’s not genuine. None of you know why the things you believe are good, so you can’t reconcile those beliefs with Trump’s antithetical behaviors. But you also can’t criticize Trump, because that’ll definitely get you ostracized, so you make these feeble attempts to change the subject.

Except the whole tribe is doing the same exact thing. You’re all part of the same big circle jerk, except none of you is really into dudes.




Calls to cancel New York Times subscriptions emerge over report identifying Trump whistleblower

NYT got blasted by their own journalists and outsiders for posting a story about the whistleblower.

Also: I’ve answered your first question.


I’ll be more than happy to answer the other one after you’ve asked all the super important follow-ups that merited multiple posts whining about me not explicitly answering a question to which I implicitly answered a half-dozen Times.
Click to expand...
Good God man, you could have just said yes or no. But you just can't can you? When you asked me the same question, I gave you more than an "implicit" answer, it was definitive and declarative, with no room for misunderstanding nor was it necessary for you to search past post history for the damn answer.

WTF is it with lawyers? Talk about psychological disorders. . .

Well, I see you put an asterisk on the "But Obama", what's that supposed to mean? I asked you to quote me where I said "but Obama" and that's your response? OK, you can't, can you? Instead go all juris doctorate on me and explain that's what I really meant. I guess it must be "implicit" then? Who is doing the implying? I think it's you.

I'm not going to let you get away with your attempt to deflect/demean by saying that I now turned to "whatabout the media." That's BS and you know it.

You can twist away all you want, trying to make it look like I said something or you said something about kitchen fires and gasoline. Where exactly is that prior to your post I'm now responding to? I must have overlooked it, link up the quote. Oh, it's "implicit."

I said Trump is out of line, wrong, to be attacking the whistle blower. Guess that wasn't enough for you. However I took issue with your position that whistle blower laws should protect whistle blowers completely (paraphrasing) so that they won't be reluctant to come forward. Is that about right? So prosecute Trump/impeach over that? Or are you just venting your spleen because Trump is being an azz again? Now that's news.

Regarding the law protecting whistle blowers to the point they won't be reluctant to come forward: That's nice in some ideal fantasy land. I was being realistic and still am but you seem to have some major problem with reality. You don't like to hear it so you respond with similes/metaphors and insults as if you assume I don't get it. You're the one who doesn't get it. In the real world of today, in the government bureaucracy of DC, it's all about azz, as in protecting your own. Despite all assurances given to whistle blowers, it takes someone with courage and/or another motive/agenda to be willing to come forward with information that is meant to take down the powerful. Because of the resulting blow back, from within and without the government, in the form of career suicide, the unrelenting media spotlight and more, people are rightfully reluctant to step into that crap pile. Ain't no law that will fix any of that.

With all that goes on in the Swamp, why do you think that there are very few whistle blowers coming forward? Does the law need to be strengthened? Is it because of Trump being a d!ck to this particular whistle blower? This issue existed long before him, will exist long after him and the whistle blower protection laws will not change that dynamic one bit.

Now back to kitchen fires and gasoline. . .

iu
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#6,141
#6,141
VolnJC said:
The impeachment process started the January 20th 2017 and will continue until his last day in office because Dems can't accept election results
Click to expand...



Of all the GOP arguments on impeachment, this is the worst one.

The fact that Dem voters loathe Trump, and that the Dems in Congress would like him removed from office HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether Trump committed impeachable offenses, should be impeached, should be removed, etc.

It will always be the case that the party outside the WH wants to find a reason to attack the sitting President. The issue is not their motivation to do so because it is always there. The issue is whether, objectively, what the President has done merits impeachment.

It is really aggravating to hear GOPers imply that the objective merit of his impeachment is for some reason to be judged by the motivation of the people promoting it. No, it doesn't. Absolutely it does not.
 
#6,142
#6,142
MontyPython said:
Calling it now: He will be convicted and removed from office.
Click to expand...

No chance. He could literally say he’s going to bribe countries to dig up dirt on his rivals, and republicans would stomp their feet, “express concern”, talk about how elections must be free and independent, then vote against convicting him in the senate.
 
#6,144
#6,144
While we're in Asia looking for dirt on Hunter, (you know since the dirt in Ukraine didn't flesh out) can we look into how a failed fashion designer has continued to receive sixteen thirty four patents from China?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: utvolpj and tvolsfan
#6,146
#6,146
tvolsfan said:
No chance. He could literally say he’s going to bribe countries to dig up dirt on his rivals, and republicans would stomp their feet, “express concern”, talk about how elections must be free and independent, then vote against convicting him in the senate.
Click to expand...
Agree. Virtually nothing Trump does will outweigh the eagerness to argue the merits of his dubious distractions
 
#6,147
#6,147
lawgator1 said:
Of all the GOP arguments on impeachment, this is the worst one.

The fact that Dem voters loathe Trump, and that the Dems in Congress would like him removed from office HAS NOTHING TO DO with whether Trump committed impeachable offenses, should be impeached, should be removed, etc.

It will always be the case that the party outside the WH wants to find a reason to attack the sitting President. The issue is not their motivation to do so because it is always there. The issue is whether, objectively, what the President has done merits impeachment.

It is really aggravating to hear GOPers imply that the objective merit of his impeachment is for some reason to be judged by the motivation of the people promoting it. No, it doesn't. Absolutely it does not.
Click to expand...


lawgator1 said:
Most of the voters in Georgia chose Trump.

That alone merits impeachment.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood, 37L1, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#6,148
#6,148
BowlBrother85 said:
Obviously, you want to split hairs over linguistics... because you would defend Trump for literally anything.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the way I said what I did. "You and your kind" was not meant to be "you" personally but you as a democrat and a liberal. When you look at something a second time, you sometimes realize that you just didn't say it well. It's not my intent to attack someone personally - only ideas or comments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood, BowlBrother85 and 37L1
#6,150
#6,150
AM64 said:
I apologize for the way I said what I did. "You and your kind" was not meant to be "you" personally but you as a democrat and a liberal. When you look at something a second time, you sometimes realize that you just didn't say it well. It's not my intent to attack someone personally - only ideas or comments.
Click to expand...
He just needs a lesson on the difference between shall and should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top