Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Tue Sep 22 18:40:52 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / official BS by delusional fraud POTUS#23
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 13:53:02

i'd say Schiff has proven the case already... the White House meeting quid pro quo is just fact from documents & that's abuse of power already, & you'd be an idiot if you don't think Trump would go further than that (+ evidence for that too)

of course the Fox News crowd (kargen) will just dismiss everything Schiff says even though it's backed up by documents & witnesses as they've successfully run their smear campaign on him (just like they did w/ Hillary, Pelosi, AOC... anyone who seems effective or popular)

ooh, Schiff said there was evidence of collusion... but Mueller didn't find sufficient evidence to charge conspiracy (which requires a formal agreement between the parties)... therefore Schiff was lying!!!!! [nope, there -was- evidence]

& if you are even dumber & more gullible, you buy the Trump line that Schiff was trying to trick people in his characterization of the phone call & that 'he got caught'... (which shitbag Cippolone was pushing yesterday on the floor of the senate)


anyway, i expect nothing but lies & misleading bullshit from Sekulow & Cippolone as they've already demonstrated yesterday (what kargen-types accuse Schiff of doing, but he ISN'T... they will be doing continuously...)

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 14:02:08
also one of those garbage lawyers for Trump brought up the 'where is the whistleblower' nonsense...

I wish there was more pushback on the 'if the Dems get their witnesses, Rs should get theirs (Biden, whistleblower)'

the Dems want witnesses to the acts in question, if you think Mulvaney & OMB people are 'Dem witnesses' then you think Trump is guilty
(and that's the R and Fox line, so apparently everyone knows he's guilty)
Rugian
Member
Wed Jan 22 14:11:06
You also believes Schiff when he spent two years straight up suggesting that Trump actually colluded with the Russians to steal the election.

Also, what exactly is your complaint with holding late proceedings? That some senators will need to stay up past their bedtime? That CNN will have to wait until the following day to provide wall-to-wall coverage of the events?

Where was this outrage over "lack of transparency" when Dems were conducting closed-door hearings in the SCIF room?

Why are you the way that you are?
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 14:51:25
I think this leads back to a feeling by the left that they got screwed over from the election and have just been bitter ever since.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 14:59:43
Ruggy and Habebe
You have droned people (Americans even) for far less suspicious behaviour than Trump and his entourage have demonstrated in both cases.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 15:24:20
Jergul, The whole thing is a political stunt. Don't get me wrong its not like the Republicans are above similar stunts.

Its all part of the attempt to screw Trump and everyone realistically sees it for what it is.

Its not a legal based trial, its a political process in which we know what the outcome is and it's an entirely partisan impeachment with half the country pro and half against.

To claim this at all rises above any other partisan stunts is delusional.


jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 15:34:27
Wow. Its not a criminal trial of course. Because that is not how your system is structured.

Well, obviously, the political stunts against Clinton, Nixon and Jackson should be viewed in a similar light.

In fact, we should talk about other political stunts founded on the wording of your constitution.

The 2nd ammendment political stunts seem to cause endless harm.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 15:36:36
Dronings are also not legal based trials. They are done at the order of the president for whatever reason the president feels like having.

Political stunts in other words.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 15:42:34
"what exactly is your complaint with holding late proceedings"

how many of these decrepit ancient senators do you think will be awake & alert at 2am after sitting & listening to testimony for 11+ hrs
(no offense to our decrepit posters)

how about an argument for why it would make sense... i don't see it

=========

"Where was this outrage over "lack of transparency" when Dems were conducting closed-door hearings in the SCIF room? "

depositions... done in private... as usual... with transcripts released to the public later...

(for which R's lied about not being allowed to participate)

=========

"
I think this leads back to a feeling by the left that they got screwed over from the election and have just been bitter ever since
"

NOPE, Trump is objectively awful... and it's contagious, see all his garbage allies & lawyers...

Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 15:43:24
Its a political process because thats how it is structured in law, yes we agree im not sure I follow your point.

My point is that it is a political process, it seems petty to impeach a president not only on partisan lines but that half the country still supports with an election coming up.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 15:46:40
You do know that one of the main reasons people think Trump should not be convicted, right?

Its not that he is innocent, it is that they think he should be convicted by the electors' vote in November.

I don't really think this is about screwing Trump. I think it is about forcing Republican Senators to pay a price for not voting in an unbiased manner.

The GOP may be reading the room fundamentally wrong. It might loses the Senate if it does.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 15:47:35
42% of the country currently approves of the president.
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 15:53:45
Well, I suppose only time will tell who will pay the political price in the end. In the short term Trump got a tiny boost.

This may ramp up their base, odds are imo by the time the election come around it will be a non issue.

When you made your comments about drone strikes all I could picture. Was this.

http://www...0&bih=518#imgrc=Ym5DdmUFejg_JM
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 15:58:31
Exactly 42%, to actually impeach a president you should have more than a slight majority, and not directly upon partisan lines...i see this coming back as the Republicans next time around finding something that is technically impeachable and running with it...I hope not.

Just my opinion.
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 16:07:34
I was speaking about the American droned, not Soleimani. I forgot about him.

I was angry about you blithly describing a core article in your constitution as a political stunt.

In the short term, his disapproval increased more than approval rate did.

Ultimately, democrats are seeing this through because 88% of their voters think they should.

Trump was impeached. The question is now if he will be convicted and removed from office.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 16:12:15
there won't be a political price for impeachment votes

Trump will do 10+ more grossly unfit things before the election & at the voting booth people will only remember the most recent 3 or so

informed people will vote against Trump & his sycophants, Fox News watchers will vote for Trump & his sycophants
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 16:34:53
"I was angry about you blithly describing a core article in your constitution as a political stunt."

First off, the absurdity of you being so pissed off about my opinion on things in my constitution when you live in Norway I find funny.

But my point is that this impeachment is a stunt, even Pelosi has admitted she doesnt beleive he will be taken out pf office but claimed " now he is impeached, Impeached for life he can not ever change that"

Why not wait for the election to decide the fate of Trump?

Because it is sooo important that he be removed immediately, so much so that they try every attempt to drag this out hoping that eventually it will turn public opinion in there favor but so far it has stayed about same slightly favoring Trump.


Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 16:36:22
Tw isnt really wrong there....id use different terms but hes an angry liberal.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 17:36:07
"Why not wait for the election to decide the fate of Trump?"

because that gives a power-abusing unfit idiot child another YEAR in office (plus what he's accused of is trying to interfere w/ the next election)

& Dems did NOT drag this out... the testimony was done extremely fast (it was <4 months from exposing of behavior to impeachment)... Pelosi held it up for maybe a week* at most, if at all, as the Senate was clearly looking for a sham trial, it got some extra pressure for witnesses or maybe it didn't, it hardly delayed anything
(*they had holiday break, plus had to formulate the rules anyway)

plus R's are the ones complaining they didn't drag it out another 1-2 years by taking everything to court over Trump's made-up claim of blanket immunity (NOT executive privilege arguments)

=============

now a question for Schiff-haters... you are sooo upset that you feel he misled about Russia (as Fox News told you he did)... yet Trump lies/misleads/makes shit up EVERY time he speaks publicly (& that's way more often than Schiff)... why does that get a pass?

how about you listen to Schiff's arguments & pay attention to his supporting docs & counter argue off that if you can
(Schiff WAY more professional & compelling than Cippolone/Sekulow repeating nonsense that people like Jordan spewed in the hearings, or Trump/Fox News false talking points)
Forwyn
Member
Wed Jan 22 18:12:13
Schiff isn't being threatened with removal from office, for starters
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 18:27:18
I found a pic of tw

http://www...518&dpr=2#imgrc=AF-DO50aErwNwM
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 22 18:29:13
From thread 22

""Trump had solicited political favors from a foreign nation -- Ukraine -- using nearly $400 million in taxpayer aid and then mounted a massive cover-up to hide his actions."

Your point is that these are not technically crimes falling under US jurisdiction?"

Nope my point is Schiff and others haven't provided proof of that claim. President Trump asked that a company be investigated. A company that had/has serious problems with corruption. Schiff and TW are claiming they can read President Trump's mind (TW would argue what mind I suppose) and know his intentions.
We also know every president has attached conditions to foreign aid. Democrats tried to put all kinds of conditions on Israel before they were sent military aid. I'm thinking Israel is much more important to US security than Ukraine.

So President Trump applying conditions is not only allowed but very common and has been from the beginning. All that matters in intent and we can only speculate on that. Can't convict on speculation in the US. We are suppose to frown on that.

And no the phone calls are not smoking guns.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 18:34:47
"Schiff isn't being threatened with removal from office, for starters"

he's been accused of treason by the President... under normal sane circumstances that would be quite serious


Trump tweets:

"I want Schiff questioned at the highest level for Fraud & Treason"

"Schiff has also committed a crime, perhaps treason, in making up a horrible statement"

"Rep. Adam Schiff illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement, pretended it to be mine as the most important part of my call to the Ukrainian President, and read it aloud to Congress and the American people. It bore NO relationship to what I said on the call. Arrest for Treason?"

"...This makes Nervous Nancy every bit as guilty as Liddle’ Adam Schiff for High Crimes and Misdemeanors, and even Treason."

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 18:38:37
"President Trump asked that a company be investigated. A company that had/has serious problems with corruption. Schiff and TW are claiming they can read President Trump's mind."

wow...

please point to the part of the call where Trump talks about Burisma corruption or any corruption... ever... on any call... (he was -supposed- to... their false readout claimed he did, he did not)

he said BIDEN specifically, NO MIND-READING required at all...

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 18:41:57
...also defend the Crowdstrike part... the horribly misinformed idiot President doing ZERO preparation & talking about nonsense when calling other country's leaders... totally fine?
Habebe
Member
Wed Jan 22 18:48:56
Well, Trump Is a god though so its all blasphemy....see I can be absurd too.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 19:04:50
did i say something absurd?


also is anyone doubting Giuliani was pushing for Zelensky to announce the investigations? we saw the texts from Yermak (i think) with their version of what they were willing to say about fighting corruption (under clear pressure, otherwise why sharing it w/ our side to begin with?)... then we saw Giuliani's edits which only were to specifically name Biden & 2016 interference which they clearly did not want to do (more clear pressure...)
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 22 19:06:37
ah yeah I forgot that part where President Trump mentioned Biden bragging. President Trump was/is right though that watching Biden brag about that on television there should have been and still needs to be an investigation.

That was much worse than the phone calls.

So my bad for forgetting that part but still isn't an impeachable offense considering the actions before by Biden and the context of the call.

The funny part of all this is the Democrats started (by their own admission) the plan for impeachment a good two years before the thing President Trump was impeached for even happened.

They know they have nothing and that is why they called no witnesses and now are acting all indignant that they can't dictate how the Senate will run things. This whole fucking thing is a circus and Nancy when she was the ringmaster let the the clowns run the show. Now the clowns are pissed and throwing a temper tantrum because they are being put back in the little car where they belong.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 19:47:15
do you have Fox News injected right into your bloodstream?

shall I assume you are unaware that heaps of people and organizations wanted that prosecutor removed (including Ukraines parliament)

and how did they "call no witnesses"? they wanted (and still want) every single person with knowledge... whereas the guy you think is innocent for some reason has tried to block all witnesses and docs

yes if willing to wait 1-2 years for anything at all they could've gone through courts to fight a total nonsense argument... then some more years on exec privilege... but I can think of reasons not to want to do that... for me they are self-evident... how about you?
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 22 21:14:31
Habebe
Hypocracy has global piss-off capability. I will be remembering your fluid stance on constitutional articles the next time you cite DUH CUNSTITUTION as basis for a position.

kargen
Member
Wed Jan 22 21:25:21
"shall I assume you are unaware that heaps of people and organizations wanted that prosecutor removed (including Ukraines parliament)"

Not really relevant though because how many threatened in an official capacity to withhold funds if they didn't get their way? I'm guessing one and a little hint he has a son named Hunter.

If the wanted the witnesses there was a way to get them. When congress and the executive branch disagree there is a handy third branch of government to decide these things. The Democrats didn't ask the courts and that speaks volumes in their knowing nothing would be gained.
Courts have streamlined and expedited proceedings in the past if there was urgency and would have done so here. The Democrats can't use the urgency excuse though after what Pelosi pulled.

The president was given executive privilege for a reason and should never give it up lightly. President Trump was right to claim executive privilege exactly like it would be right for you to demand a search warrant before allowing officers to search your house.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 22:26:07
I like how your zero evidence Joe did it for his son outweighs that th UN, the IMF and Ukrainians all wanted the prosecutor gone... as he did NOT fight courruption

------------

"Courts have streamlined and expedited proceedings in the past"

your theoretical claim is nice, whereas in reality McGahn is still in courts over Mueller testimony... no ruling expected til this summer...

-----

"President Trump was right to claim executive privilege "

you are dangerously misinformed, Trump did not and is not exerting executive privilege... on anything

at least you demonstrate the horror of Fox News, let all take note



tumbleweed
the wanderer
Wed Jan 22 23:29:38
some tweets from the White House... the head of our government...

"
Adam Schiff just lied again, claiming that President Trump endorsed the theory that Russia did not interfere in 2016.

President Trump has publicly said, very clearly, that he accepts the conclusion of the intelligence community that Russia interfered in the 2016 election.

[w/ video of Trump reading a statement that says he accepts Russia did it... to clean up Helsinki]
"

i guess only i remember his ~2 year campaign of defending Russia & doubting our intel agencies... plus standing w/ Putin & siding w/ him... & his blatantly obvious lie to all our faces that he was just one word off, by mistake...

=====================

and another:

"
Adam Schiff is LYING that President Trump withheld an Oval Office meeting from President Zelensky.

President Trump invited President Zelensky to the White House—with no preconditions—on THREE occasions: April 21, May 29, & July 25.

They met at the first opportunity, at the UN.
"

there -still- has been no oval office meeting so nope, no lie demonstrated (in fact it provably is true from texts)... & at the UN meeting referenced
“You invited me. But I think - I’m sorry, but I think you forgot to tell me the date.” ~ Zelensky


so there's the White House falsely smearing Schiff... & i'm sure kargen has or will hear those lies on Fox News too & believe them... but probably won't hear how Sekulow & Cippolone (Trump's garbage lawyers) provably lied

kargen
Member
Wed Jan 22 23:56:52
"I like how your zero evidence Joe did it for his son"

I didn't apply intent like you have been. I am saying what Biden said in that video is enough to at least investigate. It doesn't need to be part of the impeachment necessarily but it needs investigated. He happily bragged about doing what the Democrats are claiming President Trump has done.

I like how you assume I have been watching FOX News. I've actually seen CNN more these past two weeks than any other news agency and listen to either ABC or CBS (sometimes both) at least three times a week. The only program I try to catch on Fox is The Five and I've been out lately when it is on.
But you keep it up with the mind reading you are bound to get one right some time or another.
kargen
Member
Wed Jan 22 23:58:51
"your theoretical claim is nice, whereas in reality McGahn is still in courts over Mueller testimony... no ruling expected til this summer..."

Point out to me where I said they streamline every decision. Thanks in advance.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 00:33:52
McGahn would be about impeachable offenses too, & it's the same total bullshit argument (NOT executive privilege) so it seems kinda similar... one might say exactly the same...

==========

"I am saying what Biden said in that video is enough to at least investigate"

yes, criminal politicians love bragging at public events about their crimes...

also, so go investigate... who's stopping anyone?

it's got nothing to do w/ the impeachment trial
kargen
Member
Thu Jan 23 02:31:30
Then again if Biden should somehow become president wouldn't he need to be impeached day one for doing the same thing Democrats are claiming President Trump has done?
I do agree it has nothing to do with the impeachment going on now. Doesn't change that the Democrats still have not shown proof of an impeachable offense and yeah I know you think a mean tweet is impeachable but it really isn't.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 23 03:41:23
We need something more interesting to argue about...

Bottom line, Trump will be aquitted, his will br mostly forgotten.





This is just political theatre. The dems who argue " what have you got to hide" insisiting for more people to testify, but not everyone.The offer was made to let Bolton testify, if Hunter did also schiff refused.

Why? They would claim that he has nothung to do with the case. However this is nonsense, all of a sudden they want less of a political trial.

This is a political process, not a legal one like most trials.

They claim Trump wrongfully asked Ukraine to investigate him, that is the basis of there case.

But a person who plays such a pivotal role in there case houldnt testify?

The. Real reason and we all know why is that lets face it, its going to look poorly on Joe for nepotism, not too big a deal though.

2ndly if anything shady went on in Burisma while hunter was there not only would it look poorly on Biden ( slightly) but it would embolden Trump to go on Twitter and say " see, I told you so" and. It would be a win for Trump....again its all a.political process and this one is some partisan Hackett on both sides.





jergul
large member
Thu Jan 23 08:21:00
Habebe
Did, or did not Trump solicite foreign involvement in US elections?

Did, or did not the administration refuse to adhere to Congressional supeonas investigating solicitation?

His legacy will be his impeachment. That would be true even if it turns out impeachment is a shruggable outcome.

One side effect will be my ROFL@DUHCUNSTITUTION any time anyone cites 2nd amendment rights from now on for example.

That will be fun for me.
Habebe
Member
Thu Jan 23 08:36:41
Vague question, but id say technically no with a long answer maybe.

Elaborate your constitution bit.This should be fun.
jergul
large member
Thu Jan 23 08:47:53
Habebe
You would be technically wrong.

Rofl@DUHCUNSTITUTION will definitely be fun, for me.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Thu Jan 23 09:22:11
I love how he typically claims to see both sides, but pretty much always supports one side with an added, almost side of the mouth, comment like, "and this one is some partisan Hackett on both sides."
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 12:03:42
"Then again if Biden should somehow become president wouldn't he need to be impeached "

NOPE

recall the ZERO evidence he did it to help his son, & that he had legit reasons that are COMPLETELY obvious

unlike Trump where plenty of evidence it was for his personal use

the ONLY evidence to the contrary is Sandy being asked to investigate Europe's contributions... which didn't happen til September... & Trump insisting 'i want nothing, no quid pro quo' (such normal things for Trump to say)... which also didn't happen til September

hmm... what happened at the start of September? a whistleblower... & OMB people, including Mulvaney, concerned they were violating the law...

======

as to Hunter Biden he -definitely- has no relevance... for starters, no allegation was even made against him by Trump... R's have now decided it was a critical & sensible thing to do (& to initiate the investigation w/ Ukraine & private citizen Giuliani...)... well why didn't they do it 2014, 2015, 2016?... as i noted before, it was no secret he worked there
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 12:10:18
also recall the theory is Trump is worried about Ukraine being too corrupt... so ask the horribly corrupt country to investigate US citizens w/ no involvement by us... (except crazed lunatic private citizen, working for Trump for free, Giuliani)

makes total sense!
~ garbage R's / Fox
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 12:19:57
and we also agree the President should be able to ignore all subpoenas for any docs & witnesses if they so choose... going to court for years to get any single thing is totally what the founders intended...
~ garbage R's / Fox
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 12:32:47
here's Trump appearing to have no idea who he's talking to... plus 'we took the oil!'

http://twitter.com/SinaToossi/status/1220070442389688320
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 14:09:30
btw, recently at the trial, there was a compilation of the witnesses testifying (under oath) that what Biden did was not suspicious & was in fact administration policy... for kargen to ignore

just wild speculation is more solid... the Trumpian way
kargen
Member
Thu Jan 23 18:22:53
"Did, or did not Trump solicite foreign involvement in US elections?

Did, or did not the administration refuse to adhere to Congressional supeonas investigating solicitation?"

I wanna answer these as well.

No proof that he did. He might have asked for information about opponents but that isn't the same as asking them to be involved. It's not like he said hey Putin can you do a door to door get out the vote campaign for me in Pittsburgh.

Sort of. Congress and the executive branch are equal branches of the government. When they disagree the judicial branch should get involved. Since Democrats decided not to pursue things in the courts there President Trump could decline the subpoenas. Presidents do it all the time and should continue to do so. The sort of comes in with the refuse to adhere. They did adhere as the constitution requires by answering they wouldn't show up.
kargen
Member
Thu Jan 23 18:27:46
"btw, recently at the trial, there was a compilation of the witnesses testifying (under oath) that what Biden did was not suspicious & was in fact administration policy... for kargen to ignore"

Look I'm not ignoring it. Your mind reading abilities have failed you again. I will point out there are all kinds of people saying President Trump's phone call was not suspicious and in fact is common place and has been for many many decades.

And the administration policy bit doesn't matter. It can be administration policy and still be unconstitutional. Just because the president says this is how we are going to do things doesn't mean those things are legal.

If President Trump's phone call is grounds for impeachment then Biden's bragging on tv should disqualify him from running. Biden's bit was much worse.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 21:10:38
"there are all kinds of people saying President Trump's phone call was not suspicious and in fact is common place"

anyone who is not a continual Trump shill? there are even Trump defenders saying it was wrong

the people saying what Biden did was fine aren't Dem shills, just the people and experts who were working on Ukraine

------

and disagreements being handled in the courts is fine... a blanket immunity however is not a reasonable position, there is no chance in hell it would be upheld

they aren't using executive privilege as that would be applied to specific lines in docs or specific questions of witnesses... that would be reasonable to go to court

what Trump is doing is not remotely reasonable
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 21:38:53
well today's testimony just ended, 10:30pm... they'd be only 2/3rds through the day under McConnells indefensible initial plan

even with this schedule people get up and leave for periods of time (as is not done by any normal juror... nor permissible here, but whatever)

Marsha Blackburn did a live Fox interview while in session, and her press secretary happily admits Marsha is reading a Trump propaganda book during the arguments

proudly shirking her constitutional duty as one would expect from a Trumper
kargen
Member
Thu Jan 23 22:30:35
yep big story today is all the Senators (both parties) caught napping. That pretty much tells us everything we need to know. If none of them are serious about this why should we be?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Thu Jan 23 23:06:50
so your conclusion is one that favors Trump... odd that keeps happening when you are neutral

one might think today ending at 10:40pm, yesterday ending at 9:40pm & the day prior ending at 2am might be contributing to fatigue

a schedule set by the R's
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 24 02:39:14
Nope that is the conclusion you decided I should have because you can't comprehend what I said in your current mental state.

And boo-hoo they can't pay attention for eight hours. It does suck though that they can't sneak a power bar in somewhere.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 12:25:48
oh Lordy, there are tapes...

(although not available to listen to yet i guess)

========

A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman -- two former business associates of Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani who have since been indicted in New York.

The recording appears to contradict statements by President Trump and support the narrative that has been offered by Parnas during broadcast interviews in recent days. Sources familiar with the recording said the recording was made during an intimate April 30, 2018, dinner at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.

Trump has said repeatedly he does not know Parnas, a Soviet-born American who has emerged as a wild card in Trump’s impeachment trial, especially in the days since Trump was impeached.

"Get rid of her!" is what the voice that appears to be President Trump’s is heard saying. "Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it."

<continues>
http://abc...e-ambassador/story?id=68506437

so Trump lying about Parnas... we're collectively shocked, i'm sure

and wanting our ambassador removed on the word of goon Parnas

(and possibly trying to have our ambassador killed...)
kargen
Member
Fri Jan 24 13:52:48
Do you remember the two articles of impeachment? Whether or not President Trump is lying about knowing Parnas has nothing to do with those two articles. If President Trump were under oath when he lied then they could impeach him for perjury like President Clinton was.

And a president gets to fire ambassadors. They really don't even need a reason.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 24 14:01:25
kargen -

Nonsense. Faced with a troublesome official who serves at the pleasure of the President, the best course of action for getting ride of her is to order that she be murdered, Sonny Corleone style.

But remember, TW knows better than us since he "knows how Trump's mind works."
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 14:08:57
i didn't say this recording relates to the articles of impeachment, it's just news of the day


how kargen/Fox will characterize that meeting:

--------------

Parnas: 'The Ukraine ambassador is badmouthing you'
Trump: 'Thank you complete stranger who is in a private dinner with me, the President*... I trust you completely & will have her removed from her post after consulting the appropriate people... & also will fire my secret service detail'

(*'and a total stranger who has over a dozen photos/videos w/ me & my family at various places & events both private & public')

===============

whereas the (sadly) more accurate version:

Trump: 'Hello, my favorite goon'
Parnas: 'The Ukraine ambassador is badmouthing you'
Trump: 'GET RID OF HER! GET HER OUT TOMORROW! I DON'T CARE! GET HER OUT TOMORROW! TAKE HER OUT!!! WAAAHHHHHHH' *smashing sounds*

=========

(i said "more accurate"... not accurate :p )

we'll see when it comes out how grossly unfit he sounds... the reaction alone is unfit
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 14:09:56
(also, feel free to be upset Trump lied to your faces again)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 14:24:25
...and actually it does relate to impeachment by lending credibility to Lev Parnas' other claims

(learning Trump lies about everything is not terribly new info... just continues to be weird that it's acceptable to a certain ~43%)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 15:50:47
well, Trump has revealed the Space Foce logo... a complete rip-off of Starfleet... not sure if a joke as this administration and jokes have merged

http://twi...ump/status/1220821545746141187
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 24 16:32:41
So what? It's a good looking logo.
Rugian
Member
Fri Jan 24 16:33:24
Anyway, when did Democrats turn into full-blown neocons? Here's an extract from that "brilliant" Schiff speech that you praised so heavily:

http://twitter.com/Xeriland/status/1220058163132731393
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 17:02:32
did you listen to any other parts?

have you noticed how many 'Schiff lied' talking points are out there* by Team Misinformation? ... they seem worried

(*usually w/ no examples, or false ones... like the White House examples above... i would hope there's semi-defensible examples but i haven't seen any)

do you care when Trump or his White House or his associates lie to your face or do you just assume it's for the greater good?
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Jan 24 17:03:44
Ripping off Starfleet Command is pretty fucking lame, lol.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 17:33:03
not sure it would pass a copyright claim for the eventual merchandise
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 21:49:32
well, the R senators people held out hope (Murkowski/Collins/some others) are pretending to be super-offended at Schiff citing a 'heads on pikes' claim in a news article... (look it up if you want, has nothing to do w/ issues at hand... plus Schiff said he didn't know if true, was a quote from a Trump source, so obviously a person of low character)


anyway, the Senators were clearly looking for anything to cling to & that's the best they could work with... something entirely unrelated... pathetic

♫ ♬
"
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That's how it goes
Everybody knows
" ♫ ♬

(^made a good opening in Justice League in my opinion :p)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Jan 24 22:14:20
will be a very dangerous precedent if the R's do sell out

obstruction is proven, there is ZERO chance the courts would uphold blanket immunity of all witnesses & docs, and the Trump lawyers know it, thus obstruction

so R's will be signing off on any President ignoring 100% of subpoenas going forward

plus being fine w/ the President asking foreign gov'ts for help against political opponents* including withholding at least some official acts (a desperately wanted white house meeting)

there's no question he did that much... just whether he withheld the military aid for it (which he also definitely did, if you use some brain cells)

(* & if you think it wasn't about Biden being a political rival, that Trump would've done the same if it was some unknown apolitical bureaucrat... then you are just wrong)

==============

anyway, tomorrow is Team Trump's turn to bang on desks, shout & provably lie... will be a marked difference from the professionalism of Schiff & his team
kargen
Member
Sat Jan 25 00:56:09
obstruction is imagined.

Fixed that for you.

For it to be actual obstruction they would need to be ignoring a court order or destroying evidence they know is about to be subpoenaed... ya know like Emails or something.



tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 01:26:19
do you think it's a good faith argument? they actually believe courts might rule they don't have to turn over a single document or employee of any department?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 01:32:37
also, don't you find it a bit suspicious they don't even want someone like Duffey at OMB to talk?

Trump is supposedly innocent but can't even let an employee he doesn't even speak to testify... gotta protect this made-up privilege for future presidents, right? a selfless act by Trump of hiding all supposedly exonerating evidence... that's their claim...

jergul
large member
Sat Jan 25 01:44:09
Kargen
You are not making sense. Why would obstruction need a court order in the case of subpoenaes, but a subpeona is sufficient on its own if evidence has been destroyed.

Would you not need a court order upholding the subpeona on destroyed evidence too?

I am sure you are refering to something specific. Was there ever a court order upholding the subpeona on destroyed evidence?
kargen
Member
Sat Jan 25 01:50:09
Nope I don't think that at all as should be obvious by now. I've said any president should when in doubt claim executive privilege and let the courts decide. You don't just turn shit over because you think there is a chance the court will not rule in your favor. You refuse because the law says you can.
Just the same way you shouldn't allow the police to search your house unless they have a warrant whether you have something to hide or not. It is a right and if the president, any president, gives it up one time congress will try and claim precedent in the future against this president or one on down the line. You know they will.

I didn't say it was a selfless act. I didn't apply any good or evil intent to it at all. He may be doing it to save his own ass still doesn't mean it is the wrong move.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 02:09:45
"I've said any president should when in doubt claim executive privilege and let the courts decide"

how does that remotely apply here?

they aren't claiming executive privilege (as i've noted many times) plus it DEFINITELY would not apply to most of the things (which is why they aren't claiming it)

they are in doubt about EVERY single document & witness? maybe this admin is too clueless, so impeach over that

=====================

"Just the same way you shouldn't allow the police to search your house unless they have a warrant"

you're acting like all subpoenas should be taken to court as standard practice... this would be like taking the warrant to court in your scenario

====================

"I didn't say it was a selfless act"

i'm not saying you are, that's team Trump's claim... he'd love to turn over everything but he has to protect this (fake) right for future presidents


you accept a TON of bullshit from team Trump... & seemingly just ignore it & come up with your own rationales that they never say

it's weird

tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 11:40:13
"
Our case against lyin’, cheatin’, liddle’ Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Cryin’ Chuck Schumer, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, their leader, dumb as a rock AOC, & the entire Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrat Party, starts today at 10:00 A.M. on @FoxNews
, @OANN or Fake News @CNN or Fake News MSDNC!
"
~ a toddler

so professional... makes us so proud...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 12:12:14
back to courts discussion... judges rule on the subpoenas based on the law... the White House lawyers should be able to figure out the law without needing courts on EVERY fucking thing

this was in the McGahn ruling:

"Thus—to be crystal clear—what is at issue in this case is solely whether senior level presidential aides, such as McGahn, are legally required to respond to a subpoena that a committee of Congress has issued, by appearing before the committee for testimony despite any presidential directive prohibiting such a response. McGahn 'must appear before the Committee to provide testimony, and invoke executive privilege where appropriate.' "


specifically not denying executive privilege (as not exerted, & would be used on a question by question basis)
...that case still working its way to Supreme Court where they will lose on same reason but delay & obstruction is the only goal
(although Trump will be expecting Gorsuch & the Beerman to vote in his favor & will get mad if they don't as he's unfit)


Congress has oversight ability, you don't need to be a legal expert to know that there is no law saying the President can blanket ignore all subpoenas, & you don't need the courts to tell you so

plus Supreme Court ruled Nixon had to turn over his tapes... do you think Trump has a stronger case over every employee & document of the executive branch?


obstruction. proven.
kargen
Member
Sat Jan 25 16:11:09
"plus Supreme Court ruled"

you think that somehow disputes my claim that the Democrats should have gone to the courts?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 16:16:06
i've completely demolished your claim the Democrats should have gone to the courts w/ multiple arguments
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:01:31
What arguments? The only ones I've seen is that the president (or rather, this president only) should reduce himself and his entire branch to becoming a functionary of the legislature, and freely cooperate with a group of unhinged extremists who already decided how they'd vote in an impeachment process a full three years before Ukraine even came up.
kargen
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:02:11
Yes you have... right there in the little world you created.

Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:02:35
In tw-land
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:05:06
Anyway, the only "damage" this whole process will do in the long term is ensure that impeachment will be abused much more frequently going forward. The next Democratic president who is unfortunate enough to face a Republican House majority is automatically doomed to become #4. And the next Republican president that follows him & faces a Democratic House majority is automatically doomed to become #5.

Congrats. Impeachment is an irrelevancy now, with its only value generated from its ability to slightly embarrass an opposition president.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:07:02
Strong prediction. It probably won't be long before we find out if you're correct. I'm betting you're wrong, like usual. We'll see.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:17:05
*shrug* I'm just reading the signs as I see them. You think Democratic hatred for Trump is off the charts now, just wait until the Democrats get a hard-left socialist elected and see how well the GOP takes that.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:19:52
Yes, you've made us all very aware of how you perceive things.
Rugian
Member
Sat Jan 25 17:28:46
And you've made us all very aware of how much you're a HOer troll, with no actual political opinions with any more substance than what we could get simply by tracking conventional MSNBC headlines. Nevertheless, we continue to tolerate you and your inferior intellect.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 17:33:52
my solid arguments:
- it would take 1-2 years... (this is unacceptable for a # of reasons, if you can't see them you never will)
- team Trump has no legal argument, just an offensive ridiculous claim of total immunity
-== McGahn is losing completely, as expected (& he was a lawyer to Trump, so if anyone would be immune it would be someone like him)... Nixon lost as well... where is the legit belief Trump will succeed on a sweeping claim across the entire branch of gov't?
- there is no existent right being protected for future presidents... thus the entire motive is to hide & delay (obstruct)... if you disagree, provide a different motive that makes sense

it's in the constitution that Congress has oversight... how can they have oversight if everything requires a 1-2 year court battle for the white house lawyers to comprehend the law



your counter arguments:
- theoretically courts could maybe speed it up... even though they aren't...
- 'executive privilege is an important right', or other nonsense referencing executive privilege... WHICH IS NOT BEING CLAIMED... that would be the next 1-2 year court battle after Trump roundly lost on the first round of nonsense arguments


(also, i didn't see much of day #3 which was Schiff's team arguing obstruction so he probably had plenty more good points)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 17:48:47
...and no i'm not saying the courts couldn't be involved if there was some sort of unclear / close call situation

how anyone can think that applies to EVERY employee & EVERY document is bizarre
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Jan 25 18:02:48
Oops, touched a nerve. Sorry about that.
TJ
Member
Sat Jan 25 19:02:59
"where is the legit belief Trump will succeed on a sweeping claim across the entire branch of gov't?"

The Trump defense team argued that the House committee was required to take a full house vote in order to legally begin the impeachment inquiry and get authority to issue subpoenas. According to the defense team, not doing so, made the entire process illegitimate. I think we'll see more on the particular issue as the defense team continues on Monday.

Don't shoot the messenger that has actually been listening carefully to the entire trial thus far.
Habebe
Member
Sat Jan 25 19:28:07
Tj, Good to see you again.

But your correct, apparently Pelosi didnt think she had the votes at that time so she made the decision herself in lieu of having a vote....thats what I gathered from the testimony and Stephenopolus.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 20:17:01
so let's pretend they would've honored subpoenas if that vote had happened first?

give me a break
TJ
Member
Sat Jan 25 21:14:42
Yeah Habebe, I'm not an obsessive poster. Here and there I take the time.

tw:

You can't prove something that wasn't challenged. They may have appeared if the process had legitimately been executed and at that time claimed executive privilege, but Pretend away.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 21:30:53
"The Trump defense team argued that the House committee was required to take a full house vote in order to legally begin the impeachment inquiry and get authority to issue subpoenas."

did they prove it or just claim it? I recall an argument to the contrary as process for impeachment isn't in the constitution

also, that means we are to believe they sat on supposedly exonerating evidence and allowed Trump to get impeached all because they didn't agree on how it was the initiated

plus why still resistant now that it's in the Senate? they still want to sit on supposedly exonerating evidence and risk actual removal because the House didn't vote when they wanted them to? (granted a thin chance of removal)
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 21:40:46
also, putting aside all the definite proof that he did it on this and with Mueller... just based on what you've seen of his 'character'... does anyone really think Trump has respect for the law and wouldn't obstruct investigations of himself?
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 21:59:31
if you need a reminder:

Trump attacked Jeff Sessions for investigating the alleged crimes of 2 republican candidates before the midterms... both who have since pleaded guilty, as they are Trump supporters (so criminals)

i wonder if he would've also objected if they had been Dems... hmmm... somehow i think he would've tweeted the allegations regularly even if on the thinnest of evidence & no actual investigation was started... because he does that already...
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 23:04:03
2 Trump fans w/ advanced brain deterioration:

http://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1221262819296870401
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Sat Jan 25 23:10:11
speaking of Giuliani, did team Trump spend any moments justifying why Giuliani was our only involvement in these critical investigations requested of the corrupt gov't of Ukraine by our mentally fit & law-abiding President?
kargen
Member
Sun Jan 26 00:49:52
"The Trump defense team argued that the House committee was required to take a full house vote in order to legally begin the impeachment inquiry and get authority to issue subpoenas. According to the defense team, not doing so, made the entire process illegitimate."
That was true for a while. A while back the House changed the rules and the chairs of certain committees can issue subpoenas without a full vote in the house. The Supreme Court I believe upheld this change. I know it went to the courts not sure if it went all the way to the Supreme Court. So the process is legitimate but the president can still claim executive privilege meaning the courts would have to make an individual ruling.
Forwyn
Member
Sun Jan 26 01:14:48
Tune in next time for #24
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share