Bitcoin Forum

Previous non-self-moderated thread here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5200685.0).

---

The public impeachment hearings start this week with one hearing on Wednesday and one on Friday.  It's going to be covered in full on pretty much every network and should be pretty easy to find a live stream.  They are hoping to wrap things up and call a vote to impeach by Christmas, but many expect it to take longer.

---

Wednesday, November 13

William Taylor
- West Point graduate, Vietnam Vet
- First appointed as Ambassador to Ukraine by GW Bush in 2006
- Appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions by Obama in 2011
- Came out of retirement last Spring when Trump appointed him as Ambassador to Ukraine. (Currently Ambassador to Ukraine)
- Transcript from closed hearing (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/22/us/politics/william-taylor-ukraine-testimony.html)


George Kent
- Appointed under Trump as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs on September 4, 2018
- Has worked for the State Department since 1992
- Transcript from closed hearing (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/07/us/politics/george-kent-transcript.html)

Friday, November 15

Marie Yovanovitch
- Appointed as US Ambassador to Ukraine by Obama in 2016
- Fired by Trump last Spring
- Transcript from closed hearing (https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2019/11/Yovanovitchtestimony.pdf)

(will update when more hearings are scheduled)

---

We don't know exactly what the Democrats plan to focus on or how the Republicans plan on defending them, but here are a few likely scenarios:

Allegations
- Trump leveraged foreign aid worth ~$450m (weapons), that Congress approved to provide to Ukraine as well as a White House visit to pressure Ukraine into publicly announcing they would be opening an investigation into Hunter Biden and Joe Biden (his most likely challenger in the 2020 election) as well as the role the Democrats played in meddling in the 2016 election..  Using the power of the President (federal foreign aid) to attack your political rivals is an impeachable offense.
- Trump used his personal lawyer, Rudy Giulliani, to circumvent the Senate confirmed State Department Officials and speak on behalf of the President and Country.  
- Trump obstructed the Democrats investigation into the Ukraine/Biden/Trump investigation.

Defense
- Trump did not withhold foreign aid/White House visit in exchange for publicly announcing a Biden investigation . (There was no "quid pro quo").  The withholding of funds were not related to his request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.
- Trump did withhold foreign aid, but it was justified because he wanted to make sure that the US Government wasn't sending foreign aid to a corrupt country.  It had nothing to do with the fact the Biden was in position to be his most likely general election challenger in 2020.  Asking Ukraine to investigate the Democrats involvement in the 2016 election was also not politically motivated, his only motivation was to secure future elections.
- Trump did withhold foreign aid for political reasons and was wrong for doing so, but that's not an impeachable offense.

---

The House voted on a resolution (http://232 - 196) that laid out the rules for these hearings on Oct. 31.  It passed 232 - 196, (232 democrats voted yes, 2 democrats and 194 republicans voted no).

- The hearings will be conducted by the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence led by Chairman Adam Schiff (d) and ranking member Devin Nunez.
- Schiff will be able to question each witness for 45 minutes straight, and then Nunez will do the same for another 45 minutes.
- All other members of the committee will then have 5 minutes to question the witness, alternating by Party.
- Each representative will be allowed to have a staff member question the witness instead of doing it themself.  
- The Republicans can subpoena or request witnesses only if the chairman approves.  The Republicans have had two witnesses rejected so far, Hunter Biden and the Anonymous whistle blower.

---

Local Rules:
- When you post, you must have a clear point. If you ramble on about nothing, then your post will be deleted.
- You must stay fairly close to the topic, the Public Impeachment Hearings.
- Don't be an asshole.  No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments.

And in 2018 we voted in Nancy Pelosi and a bunch of democrats that ran on impeaching the president.

Not trying to be confrontational.  But the whole "but he's the president" thing I think is pretty dangerous.  The president is not a King.  He's the head of 1 of the 3 co-equal branches of government.

Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

.......Please don't mis represent my comments. "SORE LOSERS" is not synonymous to "BETTER"

This is  favorite tactic of Twitchy Seal and the left in general. Don't respond to the comment or question you actually made, but to the one you WISH was made in order to topic slide and create a logically fallacious defense for a topic you can't argue and wish to avoid. This is one of the main reasons the left require censorship to function, because an open discussion reveals how little logic is at the base of their arguments.

Agreed. But I'm not convinced Twitch is at the radical end of the line like blue* and hell*.

....
Twitchy Seal thinks the ends justify the means. When you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. ....

herp derp retarded people throwing retarded ideas out. derp herp.

If yall could actually have an actual conversation with you know, sourced information from reality instead of shit out of your assholes, you wouldn't have your comments deleted.

But instead, shit from assholes = required to post. And then whine when other people remove the shit.

inb4 this post is removed too.

Why would anyone delete this golden evidence of the kind of mind that justifies totalitarian censorship?

I think these are pretty insane to look at for a second. 45 percent of Americans (which is a large portion of Americans) think that the Impeachment inquiry should end right now. That's pretty much all the support that a President needs to win the electoral college in the modern time. This is without a doubt why Trump thinks he's going to be able to win with just his base, some Republicans, and a couple indys to win.

Yes I do know there is the other half -- the 55 percent of Americans that think this should proceed. But I EXPECTED the 'should this proceed' question to be at least 70-30 and maybe support for impeachment to be around the ballpark of 50-50. But this is pretty crazy to truly look at.

Shows that there is truly a silent portion of the population that does support this President, and doesn't really care about the wrongs he commits. We'll see in the coming days, weeks, months if that is going to hold.

Either that or they don't see any evidence of wrong doing, and see the left flailing frantically to try to create a scandal before 2020 because it is their only hope.

Either that or they don't see any evidence of wrong doing, and see the left flailing frantically to try to create a scandal before 2020 because it is their only hope.

Let's keep this as a serious discussion thread.  I'd like to respond to you seriously, but it's clear your questions aren't serious.

Please don't take this as an attack on you, it's nothing personal, but knock it off with the passive aggressive/bad faith arguments.  There are plenty of other threads for that.

If you have a point to make, just make it.

I don't mean silent in the sense that they keep all their views to themselves, I say silent in the sense that they keep to themselves. They're not going to be out in the streets protesting, they're not going to be on social media talking about things, they're not those types of people. They're going to impose their will at the 2020 pres election.

Also in regards to the polling shift : We're not going to know if this is a temporary bump until a few weeks / months from now. It could normalize if nothing comes out of this or the GOP is able to spin it well.

We'll see.

It's pretty clear they are primarily trying to impeach him for abusing his power to influence the election.  Are you really only paying attention to media sources that point out why he shouldn't be impeached?

They will probably tack on a couple obstruction articles for ordering everyone he can to not cooperate and also attacking the witness on twitter last week mid-testimony. 

The President’s unscheduled stop at the Walter Reed military hospital on Saturday involved a battery of tests to determine whether the President was exposed to a chemical agent that is suspected of being introduced into his food, says a White House connected source who shared detailed with Alex Jones of InfoWars.com.

“Medical staff at Walter Reed did not get a staff-wide notice about a presidential visit to the medical center in Bethesda, Maryland, ahead of Trump’s arrival, according to that source,” reports Fox59.com. “Typically, Walter Reed’s medical staff would get a general notice about a “VIP” visit to the medical center ahead of a presidential visit, notifying them of certain closures at the facility. That did not happen this time, indicating the visit was a non-routine visit and scheduled last minute.”

This action was initiated by the sudden onset of symptoms experienced by the President’s food tester, who was reported stricken with such severe symptoms that urgent medical tests were conducted on that that person while the President was diverted to Walter Reed for a priority medical examination involving a battery of chemical tests.

“The President’s motorcade drove to the medical center unannounced, with reporters under direction not to report his movement until they arrived Saturday at Walter Reed.,” reports Fox59. “A separate source familiar with the situation described Trump’s visit as ‘abnormal,’ but added that Trump, 73, appeared to be in good health late Friday.”

I am glad you think impeachment is the kind of act that is on the level of a cop putting his thumb on the scale as he weighs out a couple joints for his report. The reason obstruction is a favorite charge ....

^^^ But Bernie started paying his people $15 per hour! What does the Bernie leech have to say about that?

8)

So the original source of that Biden article is on Interfax-Ukraine... A news site owned by the Russian company Interfax. Interesting thing is that the story seems to have comes from MP Derkach. He seems to be tagged on that site for a variety of similar things about Biden that seemed to have started in, big surprise, October. Just a tad suspect given he's all of a sudden making these sorts of statements. As far as I can tell, his family has been part of the "power structure" there for a long time.

Yes. The Burisma investigation, which stems from incidents that occurred before Hunter Biden ever had anything to do with it, had been shelved by the time Shokin was removed as prosecutor. Just because Hunter Biden was on the board of a potentially corrupt company it doesn't mean he knew it was corrupt or played any role in furthering its corruption, despite whatever Quickseller or PrimeNumber7 has to say about it.

After weeks of secret impeachment testimony followed by public testimony from House Democrats' cherry-picked witnesses, support for impeaching President Trump is sinking.

While witnesses have testified that Trump requested Ukraine investigate former VP Joe Biden for corruption, support for impeachment has decreased significantly, while opposition has increased

According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.

Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks. -The Hill

"After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the case we're making on Ukraine," one Democratic fundraiser told The Hill.

Another poll registering declining support for impeachment is YouGov, which has independent support dropping from 39% weeks ago to 35%, while opposition has grown from 35% to 40%.

You know what else is dangerous? Preventing The President of The United States from exercising his Constitutional authority using the guise of "investigations" and "checks and balances". This has become a pretty clear pattern now. It seems though any time investigations, checks, and balances swing the other way suddenly it is an outrage and an "obstruction" of some yet undefined and undocumented crime investigation. It is investigation after investigation revealing nothing and constantly churning out new baseless accusations of some crime looming just around the corner for 3 solid years. Checks and balances go both ways, and the legislative branch is demonstrably exceeding its authority.

You're absolutely right.

This is the only logical defense from Republicans and I think it holds true. The witnesses that democrats put forward did not have first hand knowledge of the phone call except for Sondland and he has not laid out a case for impeachment or a case for quid pro quo. We know two things - One, the President did mention Joe Biden during a call to Ukrainian President Zelensky but it's not clear whether Trump was tying military aid to a specific investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two - High ranking US officials met with Zelensky upwards of five times after the call was made and before the whistler blower complaint went public and not once during those meetings was Joe Biden mentioned. Not one democrat has been willing to explain why it is Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainians but not at all follow through with his request to investigate the Biden's. The logical conclusion that house democrats will not accept is that Trump was "mouthing off" as he always does in these phone calls and was using Hunter Biden and Burisma as an example of ongoing corruption within Ukraine and was not specifically referencing an investigation into Joe Biden in order to get military aid.

And you think about it, it's not too surprising. Trump withholding aid for Ukraine to get anti-corruption efforts going with a new administration is not particularly unusual. The narrative is that the U.S. State Department expected Ukraine to receive military aid and that it surprised State Department lawyers that Trump withheld the foreign aid. But Trump has been critical of giving away millions of dollars of cash to foreign nations in the past and has particularly been critical of offer up huge sums of money to corrupt nations (Hint hint, Iran Nuclear Deal). So is anyone looking at this Ukraine situation logically actually expected to believe that Trump withheld this aid for investigations of his political rivals OR is it more logical that Trump withheld aid for Ukraine to pursue anti-corruption efforts in a country that is riddled by mishandling of funds?

Democrats know well enough that public support for impeachment is dwindling and that the progressive wing of the democratic party has a good shot at winning the nomination which will cause a split in democratic voting forcing independents to support Trump in the 2020 election. They're fairly desperate to tarnish the President's record here but it's important to note - don't get me wrong - I'll be the first to say that I think Trump did not handle the situation professionally, but it's not something I, nor any American expects at this point because "Trump is Trump". Trump is far from being a professional President and his supporters and opponents understand this to the point where we do not expect anything else.

Yes. The Burisma investigation, which stems from incidents that occurred before Hunter Biden ever had anything to do with it, had been shelved by the time Shokin was removed as prosecutor. Just because Hunter Biden was on the board of a potentially corrupt company it doesn't mean he knew it was corrupt or played any role in furthering its corruption, despite whatever Quickseller or PrimeNumber7 has to say about it.

That timeline is absolutely false.

"The e-mail shows that the meeting was for the purpose of getting Ukraine to back off of its corruption probe of Burisma. The e-mail, shown below, argued that Burisma had been unfairly targeted by Shokin without evidence and outside of due process. It also noted very pointedly that two “high profile US citizens” worked with Burisma, and named Hunter Biden explicitly:

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/burisma-1-768x360.png"

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/05/uh-oh-hunter-bidens-name-pops-2016-state-dept-e-mails-discussing-end-burisma-corruption-probe/

Are you really arguing that Hunter Biden was just some unwitting bystander as a board member of some "formerly corrupt" company which suddenly ceased being corrupt once Hunter joined the board? Are you saying a board member of the company not only was unaware of these operations in the past, but continued to be unaware of the attempts to cover up these facts as he was on the board? Seems like a long list of "coincidences"

You aren't interested in rule of law, you are interested only in serving your bias. You need only insinuation and speculation to condemn Trump and anyone associated with him, but you are eager to ignore documented factual evidence of very high level corruption when it is the party that serves your bias. You are either a liar or a moron, or both.

As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12 tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these memos might answer.

Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine corruption and U.S. foreign aid? CNBC (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/20/privatbank-ukraines-president-zelensky-and-the-oligarch-kolomoisky.html), Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-privatbank/ukraine-loan-talks-with-imf-stalled-over-privatbank-central-bank-idUSKBN1WQ20Q) and The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraine-corruption-concerns-stall-imf-bailout-11572535061) all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully considered during the impeachment proceedings.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

I have absolutely no intention of censoring any opinion or anything, I prefer lots of different opinions.  But a thread like this seems like it would have pretty high chance of devolving into flame/troll wars and then the discussion is basically impossible.

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Then Trump will actually be impeached.

by who?

cnn and new york times?

cnn has still not paid 275 million for accusing a catholic student of racism its still alive

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.
Yeah! Serves him right for conducting US foreign policy exactly as he is supposed to be doing!

us is a democracy after all

well trump was elected to do that. democrats should better follow orders.

they won't likely survive 2020 election though.

""Impeachment REQUIRES a Crime" - Lawyer Explains Dershowitz's Argument - Viva Frei Vlawg"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ky8DGKsfhY

I'm not totally confident here, but I think whats constitutional and legal is theoretical in these cases (subpoena and house vote examples). Just because you can find one way to thread the unprecedented needle doesn't mean that it is or is not legal or constitutional.  It would be one thing if there was already a ruling that 'a congressional subpoena is not valid if impeachment is mentioned but the House hasn't voted to begin an inquiry.'  And if that were the case, they could've just not mentioned impeachment.

If you only consider this argument: 'We sent them subpoenas, they didn't respond.'   
Then it's not that unreasonable to defend with: 'We didn't think the first few were valid because there was no vote, and we granted total immunity on the other ones'

But if the argument includes:

A) The President told us he would not respond to any request no matter and ordered the entire executive branch not to cooperate with us.
B) He was planning to drag every single subpoena through multiple courts, multiple times, making it impossible to get a ruling within X amount of time.
C) There is a valid reason that this trial needs to take place before X amount of time or The President will greatly benefit directly from what he's being tried for in X amount of time.

Then that's a pretty strong argument, although unprecedented, that the President is literally stripping Congress of their power to provide oversight. 

side note: I really don't get how it's possible for someone to make it take so long to get a ruling for something that could be incredibly urgent.  Seems like something the needs to be fixed, otherwise a President has free range to do whatever the hell he wants 12 months before the election, including literal crimes to influence the election, as long as he's successful at getting reelected and getting 34 of his friends in the Senate he can't be held accountable.

---

Funny moment in the trial just now.

Schiff claimed there's a subpoena going through federal court right now, as in like literally this very moment.

"So the judge says, 'Well if the Congress can’t enforce its subpoenas in court, then what remedy is there? And the Justice Department lawyer’s response is: 'Impeachment. Impeachment.' You can’t make this up!"

....
No one is saying Congress can't enforce its subpoenas in court. The subpoenas HAVE TO be sent through the courts in order to be enforced. The president is exercising executive privilege. Until it goes through the court, The President has every constitutional right to exercise executive privilege. Since he has every right to do this, simply exercising his constitutional authority is in no way able to be construed as obstruction. That is why the subpoenas must be decided in court. To do otherwise would be to strip the executive branch of its power, giving all authority to The Congress, which is a co-equal branch. You cry about congress supposedly being stripped of oversight in the very same breath that you try to strip the executive of its authority. The office of the president was not meant to be a parliamentary system serving at the pleasure of the Congress. The Congress can not issue a subpeona, then unilaterally decide upon the validity of the subpoena they just issued. That is asinine.

I think the House was thinking more about the case they were presenting to the country than the Senate.

Also, they put a lot of republican senators in swing states in an undesirable situation by making them actually pick a side on something they have always defaulted to political non-answers when asked about.  It's pretty common in congress to propose and force a vote on something that you know doesn't have a chance of passing just to get a record of it. (The Republicans did that often during the House Impeachment hearings, and the Democrats are doing it right now with amendment propositions, for example)

The whole trial was on whether or not Trump did something bad, and how bad it was.

During the House hearing, Bolton said he would challenge any subpoena in court, which could take over a year.

Before the Senate trial Bolton said he would not fight a subpoena, and that he had information that had not yet been made public.

'all hearsay, no direct evidence' had been repeated over and over in defense of the President.  Bolton would be able to provide direct evidence.

By refusing to hear any witnesses, and the fact that Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were all considered 'democrat witnesses', is evidence that there is a cover up happening.

^^^ Trump is probably behind his own impeachment. We all know about "divide and conquer." Looks like the Legislative Branch is divided by this so-called impeachment.

8)

....
'all hearsay, no direct evidence' had been repeated over and over in defense of the President.  Bolton would be able to provide direct evidence.

By refusing to hear any witnesses, and the fact that Pompeo, Mulvaney and Bolton were all considered 'democrat witnesses', is evidence that there is a cover up happening.

^^^ I admire TwitchySeal. He seems to be the only one seriously interested in the impeachment. He and a few other like him, are the only thing keeping the impeachment alive... at least in their own minds.

8)

If that is the case, then socialists are communists. It is common for many types of unemployed hipsters to go on a mission on instagram to talk about helping the less fortunate, whatever political religion they are.

Not sure where this leads. Maybe in the direction that Romney's now with Twitch, so Romney must be defended? Not interested in super-defining "Mormon" and "Christian conservative." I do think this statement of mine, well it certainly reflects my personal view.

A guy that started out running a flock of 200 Mormon "missionaries" in France is not exactly what most people who consider themselves Christian and conservative consider as Christian and conservative.

I don't care what he is..
I have a problem with him hindering the fight against left extremism, of which he is supposed to be an ally.. (Romney)

If he was really a Christian he wouldn't let his disagreement with Trump distract him from battling the LGBT agenda with the extreme perverted sexualization of everything they can imagine to relate, including sexualizing children with promotion and acceptance of "theybes", non-binary children, using hormone blockers on children, trans surgeries for children, child drag dancing, and generally exposing children to the topics of such filth in general, teaching children that being queer or especially TRANS is normal or acceptable and should be promoted..
Newsflas, Transexualism is not normal and should not be encouraged.. Look at the suicide rates.. You want that for your child?
Forcing Christians to make gay wedding cakes.. Forcing Christians to pay for, via their tax dollars, free abortions as plan B for sluts.. Late term abortions up to the day of birth..
On and on..

If he was battling for his "Christian Principles" then Trump would just be a minor annoyance to him compared to his actual enemies of the faith.. (which I don't see him raising much of a fuss about)

Yeah, the media (from left to right) + Trump hyped the shit out of it for 3+ years.  One side made it seem like Trump was just a Russian puppet and the other made it seem like Mueller had a team of angry democrats that would stop at nothing to end Trump presidency.

If you read the report, or the Russian indictments, you'll see there was actually a ton of other stuff going on, and they were able to figure out a very impressive amount of info on a group of Russians that were using every trick in the book to cover their tracks.   Trump just didn't want people to think Russia tried to help him get elected, even though they absolutely did, and he did a really good job of convincing millions of people to believe him. 

https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf

...
Yes, of course now that your little shifest failed, everyone should share responsibility for the damage you and your party have done pursuing this fraud right? Uh, no. This one is all on you and your chosen party. You can shove that false equivalence right back from where you pulled it.

The Washington Examiner (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/voted-to-betray-clinton-slams-senate-republicans-after-trump-acquittal) has more…

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ripped Senate Republicans after they voted to acquit President Trump on two impeachment charges of obstruction of Congress and abuse of power.

"As the president's impeachment trial began, Republican senators pledged an oath to defend the Constitution," Clinton tweeted. "Today, 52 of them voted to betray that oath—and all of us. We're entering dangerous territory for our democracy. It'll take all of us working together to restore it."

Given most of the posts on this page and the previous page, I guess any serious Trump impeachment discussion has ended and is now devolving into conspiracy talk, Trump worship and the like. Awesome. I thought those that worship Trump and conspiracy theories had their own derivative thread to do that in.

Quite on the contrary, it would not bother me if people wished to continue discussing impeaching Trump, and all that Russian Collusion. After all, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Maybe this could become a permanent subject, like the enemy EurAsia in 1984?

Fair.  The 'serious' part of the discussion has definitely been going down hill.  Since the impeachment is over, I changed the subject to US Politics and updated the rules a little in OP in hopes a civil discussion can continue.

---

Please guys, at least make an attempt to consider each situation objectively ( ask yourself "would I have the same view of a specific situation if the parties were reversed?" ), avoid personal insults and responding to posts with political talking points from either side.


I don't like deleting posts, I'm doing it because there's obviously no intention of trying to have a serious discussion in these posts, not because I disagree with you.

Examples of things that will get your post deleted:

Yes, lets all move on from how obviously wrong you were for supporting an illegal coup attempt perpetrated by known criminals and move to other topics! You don't like deleting posts, or you don't like deleting posts that agree with you? Seems like there are more than a few perfectly valid deleted posts above.

Nor is there any reason for Russia to prefer Trump, who has done nothing for Russia.  Indeed, Trump has imposed sanctions and endangered Russia by withdrawing from arms control agreements.  The claims of interference reported by the New York Times come from unnamed sources, described as "US intelligence officials," in a recent briefing of the House Intelligence Committee organized by Rep. Adam Schiff.  We do not even know if such claims were made or whether this is another of Schiff's many inventions planted on the New York Times, Schiff's partner in crime and fake news.

Schiff is the highly partisan chairman of the House Intelligence Committee who was a driver of Russiagate and the subsequent effort to impeach President Trump.  He is a known liar, having been caught in numerous lies and misrepresentations.  Schiff arranged these new claims of Russian interference in order that, in the event of Trump's reelection, the Democrats can tie up Trump for the entirety of his second term with bogus charges just as they did Trump's first term. In that way the Democrats, the political party of racial minorities, sexual perverts, and immigrant-invaders, can prevent Trump from politically organizing white Americans whose lives, careers, and safety have been harmed by global US corporations transferring their jobs abroad and by the increasing attacks on white Americans as racists and "white supremacists."  Despite the First Amendment, white Americans are losing the right of free speech, because if they "offend" a protected category of person when they exercise their free speech right, they risk being fired from their job and being investigated for a "hate crime," a crime that can only be committed by white people. White Americans are slowly being marginalized, and, rightly or wrongly, they see Trump as a protector.

A Singularity of Impeachment.

First, one a term, then per year, month, day, minute, microsecond...