REEE: [US Only] Impeachment Vote

[TECSHARE]

Since bluefirecorp_ can't engage in an actual debate without being able silence ideas he disagrees with, I thought I would post my replies to comments here as he deleted them. Perhaps people can engage in an actual debate this way, and not just have some childish club where leftists stand around and reassure each other of their correctitude, normalizing increasingly erratic behavior. OP

I am sure you would prefer the whole internet be sanitized from ideas you dislike like they do on Facebook and Twitter, but most of us don't...

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.

Plus people feel as if you're pulling away a democratically elected person because you don't like him -- which is BS as well.

Mueller's testimony is tomorrow. We'll see if that changes a few views. Overall, it's pretty obvious that he colluded with a foreign hostile entity to boost his election numbers. If you cheat to win, you shouldn't be rewarded with a victory.

You are going to be sorely upset by the results. Please do report back tomorrow on your thoughts. I can't wait.

[1715686746]

1715686746

[1715686746]

1715686746

[1715686746]

1715686746

[1715686746]

1715686746

[1715686746]

1715686746

[bluefirecorp_]

Nah, I just like keeping my threads free of shitposts.

When you don't contribute anything to the thread, it gets removed. Try making some contribution to the conversation instead of just flinging shit next time.

Even though you *love* flinging shit, I'm tired of bothering moderators to take action against it.

Maybe this will help you:

[TECSHARE]

Nah, I just like keeping my threads free of shitposts.

When you don't contribute anything to the thread, it gets removed. Try making some contribution to the conversation instead of just flinging shit next time.

Even though you *love* flinging shit, I'm tired of bothering moderators to take action against it.

Maybe this will help you:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg

I know you think repeating things I have posted to you in the past makes you look smart, frankly it is flattering, but it is also kind of sad. In order for you to sound smart repeating things back to me I have said to you, you might want to actually bother to understand them first. You will notice my reply is not even an attempt at a retort but predicting your reaction to a future event. Because of this, you will notice your whole linking of "The Hierarchy of Disagreement", while quite visually impressive, is totally irrelevant to my statement. You enjoy pretending to be smart if it makes you that happy. Who am I to get in your way?

Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.

[Spendulus]

.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.

I think there was already a vote on whether to hold hearings on impeachment, and it failed.

[squatz1]

.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.

I think there was already a vote on whether to hold hearings on impeachment, and it failed.

Yeah. This guy fails to understand that impeachment isn't popular at all, and the new Mueller hearing showed no change from what the Mueller report offered to people. You know what that means? It means that impeachment charges won't come up again and President Trump won't be impeached.

SIMPLE.

[Decimation]

I watched some of the testimony this morning and it's pretty much the usual political bullshit. No new information was heard, and all that was said throughout the whole thing was "as written in the report" and "can't comment on that". I'm tired of this "we are being open to the public" argument, followed by increasingly vague and equally confusing information. None of the new information has helped anyone, all it does is provide grounds for speculation and general confusion. I feel like a lot of this is on purpose, but who knows at this point with all the crazy stuff that's been happening.

[Spendulus]

.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.

By all means. I provide here my just-now-censored post.

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.

Quote
Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on Today at 02:54:19 PM
.....

Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied......

But we all already know this.

It was a pussy-grabber hunt, done using the finely tuned tactics of witch-huntery.

[TECSHARE]

.....
Everyone else: I encourage you to continue the discussion here free of censorship.

By all means. I provide here my just-now-censored post.

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.

Quote
Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on Today at 02:54:19 PM
.....

Few were more direct than this one: “Your investigation is not a witch hunt, is it?” Schiff asked.

“It is not a witch hunt,” Mueller replied......

But we all already know this.

It was a pussy-grabber hunt, done using the finely tuned tactics of witch-huntery.

This is why leftists can't be trusted in positions of power. Any time there is a problem, something wrong, or something that goes against their narrative they use censorship to make sure it is not discussed while they work on manufacturing a new distraction to draw attention away from their logical failures.

[bluefirecorp_]

This is why leftists can't be trusted in positions of power. Any time there is a problem, something wrong, or something that goes against their narrative they use censorship to make sure it is not discussed while they work on manufacturing a new distraction to draw attention away from their logical failures.

Nah, I just like keeping my threads free of shitposts.

[TECSHARE]

This is why leftists can't be trusted in positions of power. Any time there is a problem, something wrong, or something that goes against their narrative they use censorship to make sure it is not discussed while they work on manufacturing a new distraction to draw attention away from their logical failures.

Nah, I just like keeping my threads free of shitposts.

Good to see you still don't understand what any of that means.

[Spendulus]

...
This is why leftists can't be trusted in positions of power. Any time there is a problem, something wrong, or something that goes against their narrative they use censorship to make sure it is not discussed while they work on manufacturing a new distraction to draw attention away from their logical failures.

Although the case at hand involves ideological leftists, the problem extents to various other statists, fascists, communists and further.

By the way it's not exactly a logical failure, but a refusal to use the tools of logic. That's inescapable when you were told what to think and just repeat and believe it. It's a belief system. Others tell the leftist what he should think and feel, what he should hate and be outraged at, and he is trained to feel hate and outrage. As a good puppet.

It's a rare person that can scale from the bottom to the top and back down of a belief system with logic, and think nothing of it.

The splashy pictures are just yet another attempt to obfuscate the logic and lack of. To make the arguments more substantive and understandable, those should just be deleted.

I believe that we will see the best and the worst in these leftists, as they react to the debacle of the Mueller report, the Mueller hearing, the Kavanaugh circus, and their other total wastes of time of the people of the USA. The best, in some few, and the worst, in many of them. The worst includes silence and following the leader, as well as the arrogant attitude displayed by some.

[Spendulus]

Another deleted post, from a flat-earther-of-not-free-speech.

Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: Today at 06:39:32 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete  
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.

Quote
Quote from: TECSHARE on July 25, 2019, 08:26:05 PM
In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not. The FISA warrant was based on manufactured evidence, the investigation was based on the FISA warrant, and the obstruction of justice charges were based on the resulting investigation. This was a fraud from start to finish.

No, you don't get it.

It's not whether he obstructed justice.

It's whether he obstructed.

[TECSHARE]

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not.

Hey man, you're not very familiar with the Clinton case. Anyway, Trump also perjuried himself and covered up the evidence. It's pretty clear case of obstruction.

The best part of the whole thing is Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.

Of course, you don't care about evidence. You just like your conspiracies

I am familiar with the Clinton case. Clinton got himself for trouble because of PERJURY, upon which the obstruction of justice charges were based. The underlying crime in this case is perjury. What is the underlying crime in the case of Trump? Please do tell I have been waiting three years to hear evidence of this one.

...Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.
...

"could be charged" does not mean "evidence exists of a crime."

It does not mean "a grand jury would likely indict..."

It does not mean "should be charged..."

It means that the legal requirements exist to legally charge a person. For example, if the person was 6 years of age, he could not be charged. You get the point, maybe you don't like it, but there it is.

If anything exists criminally at all (zero evidence presented), it is a process crime which hinges upon there being a crime to obstruct to begin with. It would be similar to the police making up a fake story to search your car and later having the reason for the search proven not legitimate. Any evidence created as a result of the "fruit of the poison tree" would be invalid. A closer example would be getting charged with resisting arrest. Cops used to like to do this a lot where they couldn't find another crime they would just charge you with resisting arrest but never explain why they had to arrest you to begin with. There needs to be some kind of evidence for the basis of the investigation to begin with.

In order for him to have obstructed justice, the original crime would have to have been valid to begin with, which it was not.

Hey man, you're not very familiar with the Clinton case. Anyway, Trump also perjuried himself and covered up the evidence. It's pretty clear case of obstruction.

The best part of the whole thing is Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.

Of course, you don't care about evidence. You just like your conspiracies

The best part is actually this: https://youtu.be/iiT1uzlcvUE when he corrected himself and said they did not reach a conclusion whether the president commited a crime or not.

Yep. Anyone who knows how the laws works knows the government never "exonerates" or proves people innocent. That is not how it works. It has nothing to do with being able to charge him as president. It is just a carefully crafted semantic word salad to give dumb people the impression he is guilty of a crime while also technically saying there is no evidence of a crime. The law is "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until Muller exonerates you".


Related: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-26/ag-barrs-russiagate-origin-probe-pivots-smoking-gun-tapes-exculpatory-evidence

[Spendulus]

....
Yep. Anyone who knows how the laws works knows the government never "exonerates" or proves people innocent. That is not how it works. I has nothing to do with being able to charge him as president. It is just a carefully crafted semantic word salad to give dumb people the impression he is guilty of a crime while also technically saying there is no evidence of a crime. The law is "innocent until proven guilty" not "guilty until Muller exonerates you".


Related: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-26/ag-barrs-russiagate-origin-probe-pivots-smoking-gun-tapes-exculpatory-evidence

I have to admit to being surprised that the Mueller document DID NOT purport crimes and recommend charges or impeachment be brought against Trump. It seems to be a fair piece of work such as would be typical in a DA's office. Is it possible there were half way reasonable liberals on that all Demo team?

Avoid mentioning or even saying anything bad about the existing power structure, string up a couple underlings, and move on.

[Spendulus]

Yet another deleted post by the infamous Blue. What a close minded jerk off.

Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete 
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.

Quote
Quote from: bluefirecorp_ on July 26, 2019, 03:41:34 PM
...Mueller openly admitted Trump could be charged with obstruction if he wasn't president.
...

"could be charged" does not mean "evidence exists of a crime."

It does not mean "a grand jury would likely indict..."

It does not mean "should be charged..."

It means that the legal requirements exist to legally charge a person. For example, if the person was 6 years of age, he could not be charged. You get the point, maybe you don't like it, but there it is.

[TECSHARE]

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.

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

In California? Because the president has so much influence there right? Also what impeachment? If you think that is happening you are missing more than a few marbles.

[bluefirecorp_]

Yeah guys, can't hire a hitman out of your state, duh?

[TECSHARE]

Yeah guys, can't hire a hitman out of your state, duh?

So your implication is Trump is having people murdered in order to distract from an impeachment that not only will never happen, but if was attempted would largely be a positive thing for him considering how much it would expose the Democrat party as obstructionist, borderline traitorous, delusional useful idiots?

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.

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

Another mass shooting today too. Wonder how long until we forget about impeachment.

Impeachment was forgotten about long before it even began. It was never going to happen and is only the culmination of the last remaining delusional dreams of those suffering from terminal TDS.

[Astargath]

Yeah guys, can't hire a hitman out of your state, duh?

So your implication is Trump is having people murdered in order to distract from an impeachment that not only will never happen, but if was attempted would largely be a positive thing for him considering how much it would expose the Democrat party as obstructionist, borderline traitorous, delusional useful idiots?

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.

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

Another mass shooting today too. Wonder how long until we forget about impeachment.

Impeachment was forgotten about long before it even began. It was never going to happen and is only the culmination of the last remaining delusional dreams of those suffering from terminal TDS.

When you think liberals cant get any more crazy, boom, you find bluefirecorp, trump is hiring hitmen to murder people in order to distract them from impeachement, LOL, now thats some crazy shit.

Even cnn and other fake news admitted that the mueller testimony was garbage, why would trump need to distract anyone lol.

[TECSHARE]

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.

Oh, a mass shooting to distract from impeachment.

Seems... like a pattern.

A pattern of what? There are always a ton of mass and school shootings in the US, nothing really surprising. If you believe somehow these shootings are on purpose to make people "forget" about the non-existent possibility of impeachement after mueller report fiasco, then you have some serious mental problems. Now go ahead and delete this, also did you like the video i linked?

Add it to the free debate version of this thread. Stop posting here, and reply there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5168188.0

[TECSHARE]

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.

Where are you pulling your statistics from, your ass?

Uhh, living here, but because trolls posted charts comparing apples to oranges... I'm here to post the real charts...comparing US death rates since 2013-present.

year
--
fatalities|injured|total_victims

(bottom numbers are column totals)


Pulled numbers from: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/3/

(feel free to disprove a shooting).

We can see a sharp increase in incidents post-2016 (2017 was scary). 2018 is still pretty bad with 4x the killings as 2014. This year still has a few months left and we're already worse than 2014.

(Also, my math is wrong in year 2013. Feel free to add up the totals yourself.. cause I'm not doing *all* the work for you; just see if you read before you even post )

As usual, the goal posts are always moving with you. First its the most mass shooters, then when I point out the per-capita breakdown the USA is not first on the list, now you are rambling about fruit and changing the standard to something else. Should I break out the total numbers of firearm homicides per-capita by nation as well? You are playing a losing game relying on massaged statistics and selective omissions.

[Astargath]

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.

Where are you pulling your statistics from, your ass?

Uhh, living here, but because trolls posted charts comparing apples to oranges... I'm here to post the real charts...comparing US death rates since 2013-present.

year
--
fatalities|injured|total_victims

(bottom numbers are column totals)


Pulled numbers from: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/3/

(feel free to disprove a shooting).

We can see a sharp increase in incidents post-2016 (2017 was scary). 2018 is still pretty bad with 4x the killings as 2014. This year still has a few months left and we're already worse than 2014.

(Also, my math is wrong in year 2013. Feel free to add up the totals yourself.. cause I'm not doing *all* the work for you; just see if you read before you even post )

As usual, the goal posts are always moving with you. First its the most mass shooters, then when I point out the per-capita breakdown the USA is not first on the list, now you are rambling about fruit and changing the standard to something else. Should I break out the total numbers of firearm homicides per-capita by nation as well? You are playing a loosing game relying on massaged statistics and selective omissions.

Either way, he is saying that Trump somehow is responsible for mass shooters or that after trump was elected shootings and murders increased, they had been increasing for a long time.

[TECSHARE]

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.

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/cllnvy/police_in_el_paso_are_responding_to_an_active/

Well, shit.

And people in your country think they should ban guns, if someone had a gun there, he/she might have been able to stop the attack.

What country is that?

[Astargath]

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.

https://old.reddit.com/r/news/comments/cllnvy/police_in_el_paso_are_responding_to_an_active/

Well, shit.

And people in your country think they should ban guns, if someone had a gun there, he/she might have been able to stop the attack.

What country is that?

I assumed US. Liberals keep talking about banning guns and I don't see how that will prevent shootings.

[TECSHARE]

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.

Winning arguments is easy when you delete anyone who contradicts you isn't it?

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”

Can't win a game of chess against a bird who just shits all over the board.

If you want to "argue", argue in good faith, you dipshit.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg/707px-Graham%27s_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png

I have been as documented here. I would stop arguing with you but it is too entertaining. Good to see you still have zero fucking clue what that pretty picture you keep linking means, especially considering the reply in which you placed it belongs on its lowest level.

[Spendulus]

....Liberals keep talking about banning guns and I don't see how that will prevent shootings.

I'd like to ban Gun-Free-Zones, or severely restrict them.

[TECSHARE]

The death of the Democrat party is beginning...

[theymos]

Super interesting events...

When I first saw the headline about initiating an impeachment inquiry, I thought that it was just something Pelosi did to appease the more extreme Dems and get a few positive headlines, but it'd go nowhere. "Impeachment inquiry" sounds like a vague non-thing. But when I watched her speech, I got the sense that she's actually serious about this. Taken on its own, Pelosi's speech was very good. It projected a message of, "we all need to come together to take care of this one bad apple president," which is what you need if you want the impeachment process to be positive for the Democrats. But this is only going to work if they're actually able to put enough of a smoking gun forward to get substantial cross-party support, and I certainly haven't seen enough to satisfy that requirement.

Pelosi is a smooth political operator, she has more deep state connections than just about anyone, and the whisleblower report came from "the intelligence community" (~= the deep state). Maybe she has more dirt on Trump than we know? It'd have to be far beyond what's already known in the Ukraine hubub, but I wouldn't put it past her.

Due to living in a bubble, maybe they actually think that this Ukraine thing is a big deal? A huge strategic error in that case, then. Everything I've seen makes me think that this is even less big than all of the Mueller stuff. The investigation will drag Biden through the mud while Teflon Don gets away mostly unscathed, and by Nov 2020 it'll just be another example of the "Democratic witch hunt which prevents anything from getting done".

Usually I think that this is not an accurate way of looking at things, but maybe this was actually 4D chess by Trump? Maybe he set up the Dems to freak out about this, and now he's slowly, painfully going to release info proving his innocence and making the Dems look like fools and Biden look like a crook. If he thinks that Biden's defeat = a Warren victory in the primary, then it may make electoral sense, even, since Warren will be the easiest person for Trump to defeat.

[TECSHARE]

Usually I think that this is not an accurate way of looking at things, but maybe this was actually 4D chess by Trump? Maybe he set up the Dems to freak out about this, and now he's slowly, painfully going to release info proving his innocence and making the Dems look like fools and Biden look like a crook.

You are starting to get the idea, but you are underestimating what is about to happen here. Trump is about to immolate the Democrat party. What is coming is without precedent. A coup was attempted against the legitimately elected leader Trump, and the corruption about to be exposed is going to be the biggest political scandal in US history.

[eddie13]

Usually I think that this is not an accurate way of looking at things, but maybe this was actually 4D chess by Trump? Maybe he set up the Dems to freak out about this, and now he's slowly, painfully going to release info proving his innocence and making the Dems look like fools and Biden look like a crook.

You are starting to get the idea, but you are underestimating what is about to happen here. Trump is about to immolate the Democrat party. What is coming is without precedent. A coup was attempted against the legitimately elected leader Trump, and the corruption about to be exposed is going to be the biggest political scandal in US history.

Hasn't he been doing this all this time? Remember, "I was wiretapped" and them all calling him a liar..

I hope all the truth comes out no matter what it is, but isn't Trump already the biggest political scandal of all time? I'm not sure I've heard of this amount of insanity in history..
the left are even batshit crazy in their agendas of basically every last thing they talk about in the debates.. They all are extremists in every policy..

[TECSHARE]

Usually I think that this is not an accurate way of looking at things, but maybe this was actually 4D chess by Trump? Maybe he set up the Dems to freak out about this, and now he's slowly, painfully going to release info proving his innocence and making the Dems look like fools and Biden look like a crook.

You are starting to get the idea, but you are underestimating what is about to happen here. Trump is about to immolate the Democrat party. What is coming is without precedent. A coup was attempted against the legitimately elected leader Trump, and the corruption about to be exposed is going to be the biggest political scandal in US history.

Hasn't he been doing this all this time? Remember, "I was wiretapped" and them all calling him a liar..

I hope all the truth comes out no matter what it is, but isn't Trump already the biggest political scandal of all time? I'm not sure I've heard of this amount of insanity in history..
the left are even batshit crazy in their agendas of basically every last thing they talk about in the debates.. They all are extremists in every policy..

I mean with proof and evidence resulting in prosecution and conviction, not just collective hysteria. He has been proving them wrong over and over again, but the media just keeps pushing the original false narrative to save their own asses because they are complicit. He has been slow walking this in order to build the evidence as well as let his opponents burn their own credibility in order to reduce the risk of unrest and riots.

If he had just come out with this info right away, many people would have believed the narrative that it was to cover up for his own crimes, potentially resulting in massive unrest and civil war. He gave them all the time in the world to bring evidence against him but they never had any. Essentially he as been easing the left  into the reality that they lost legitimately, then dropping the hammer on those responsible for this attempted coup.

[BADecker]

Just remember all you anti-Trump jokers out there. Any time that the pressure gets too heavy for Trump to handle, all he has to do is formally take knowledge of the common law known to the people. Then the people will have to find some way he has hurt them. And when they take it to court against him and the rest of government, the chaos that ensues will dissolve the whole government.

[PrimeNumber7]

I think this is probably Pelosi's (and the Dem party 'elders') way of ensuring Biden will not get the nomination. The whole story makes Biden look a lot worse than it makes Trump look.

There are too many dirty and probably illegal things the Obama administration did for there to be a reasonable chance for Biden to win the presidency. These are things that are secret, but as President, Trump likely can find out about, and possibly things that Biden was involved in. A presidential race between Trump and Biden would likely highlight this corruption, and could possibly hamper turnout on the democrat side, and raise turnout on the Republican side if someone previously engaging in this likely corruption is running for President. This could possibly mean Trump not only getting reelected, but Republicans having both majorities in the House and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, if the dirt is bad enough.

The effect on the election, and all races will be less if the Dem's presidential candidate is not associated with the Obama administration corruption. 

All of this assumes all this is not Trump playing the Democrats, which may be the case. The White House apparently has evidence the Whistleblower is politically motivated in favor of a specific democratic presidential candidate and if this is true, it would throw cold water on this theory.

[BADecker]

^^^ And the Dems are realizing that they will have to sit down and really think if they want to even exist in the future. We can expect that they will be coming up with a super-candidate, someone who is not well know, so that there isn't any time to find any dirt on him.

[eddie13]

This is supposed to be the transcript.. Or, "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION"..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

[nutildah]

This is supposed to be the transcript.. Or, "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION"..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said:

The notes between the call between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine as well as the legal opinion drafted by the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent the whistleblower complaint from coming to our committee. And I have to say that I'm shocked by both. The notes of the call reflect a conversation far more damning than I or many others had imagined. It is shocking at another level that the White House would release these notes and felt that somehow this would help the President's case or cause. Because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

[TECSHARE]

This is supposed to be the transcript.. Or, "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION"..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/qI0AJK4.png

https://i.imgur.com/vs9rAv2.png

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said:

The notes between the call between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine as well as the legal opinion drafted by the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent the whistleblower complaint from coming to our committee. And I have to say that I'm shocked by both. The notes of the call reflect a conversation far more damning than I or many others had imagined. It is shocking at another level that the White House would release these notes and felt that somehow this would help the President's case or cause. Because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian foreign minister denies any pressure was applied. The levels of hypocrisy coming from people claiming abuse of investigations in order to smear political opponents after 3 years of Russia collusion hysteria is reaching the point that it can only be explained by mental breakdown. Though given your personal propensity for confirmation bias and reaching a conclusion you prefer then trying to craft a narrative around it, this viewpoint from you is not exactly unexpected.

Biden's career is over, and lots of very prominent dems are going down with him. The last 3 years have been nothing but a desperate last ditch attempt to escape their inevitable fate behind bars or dangling at the end of a rope.

[nutildah]

There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian foreign minister denies any pressure was applied.

Yes I read the article you are quoting these points from as well.

The levels of hypocrisy coming from people claiming abuse of investigations in order to smear political opponents after 3 years of Russia collusion hysteria is reaching the point that it can only be explained by mental breakdown. Though given your personal propensity for confirmation bias and reaching a conclusion you prefer then trying to craft a narrative around it, this viewpoint from you is not exactly unexpected.

What is my "narrative" here? You were in such a rush to chastise me that you didn't even read the end of my post:

I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

Biden's career is over, and lots of very prominent dems are going down with him. The last 3 years have been nothing but a desperate last ditch attempt to escape their inevitable fate behind bars or dangling at the end of a rope.

I really doubt all of this.

[Spendulus]

This is supposed to be the transcript.. Or, "MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION"..
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.

Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said:

The notes between the call between the president of the United States and the president of Ukraine as well as the legal opinion drafted by the Department of Justice in an effort to prevent the whistleblower complaint from coming to our committee. And I have to say that I'm shocked by both. The notes of the call reflect a conversation far more damning than I or many others had imagined. It is shocking at another level that the White House would release these notes and felt that somehow this would help the President's case or cause. Because what those notes reflect is a classic mafia-like shakedown of a foreign leader.

But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

I read the memo and it looks pretty straight honest business talk, several subjects, yes one is the Biden/prosecutor matter.

So if in my opinion the memo looks fine, let me ask this. How would someone like Trump ask ANYTHING of another president, such that it could not be accused that he was asking for help in "investigating a political rival?" The only way I can see is for him to stay quiet.

There is no give-me-this and i'll-give-you-that in that conversation. There are no threats or anything that could be construed that way...

[TECSHARE]

There was no quid pro quo. The Ukrainian foreign minister denies any pressure was applied.

Yes I read the article you are quoting these points from as well.

The levels of hypocrisy coming from people claiming abuse of investigations in order to smear political opponents after 3 years of Russia collusion hysteria is reaching the point that it can only be explained by mental breakdown. Though given your personal propensity for confirmation bias and reaching a conclusion you prefer then trying to craft a narrative around it, this viewpoint from you is not exactly unexpected.

What is my "narrative" here? You were in such a rush to chastise me that you didn't even read the end of my post:

I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

Biden's career is over, and lots of very prominent dems are going down with him. The last 3 years have been nothing but a desperate last ditch attempt to escape their inevitable fate behind bars or dangling at the end of a rope.

I really doubt all of this.

I don't need to quote from an article to make simple observations. Your narrative is that this has anything to do with wrong doing on Trump's part when this is nothing but a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the MASSIVE amounts of corruption Biden is about to be held accountable for. The end of your post is irrelevant because this story is about Biden's corruption no matter how much you wish it was about Trump. You have about as much sense as a can of smashed assholes, so your doubts don't mean much.

Just don't make yourself scarce when it all breaks like Flying Hellfish and his Russia delusions, because it would be such a shame for the rest of us to not get to witness the final stage of your mental breakdown over having been supporting traitors an thieves while continually condemning anyone who says otherwise. I can tell by the shift in the tone of your words you are already having doubts, but you have gone to far to back out now. You feel compelled to keep doubling down in the desperate hope that you will be able to claim some kind of twisted semantic out over this in the din of the resulting chaos.

[theymos]

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.
...
But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

It'll be another thing like the Mueller report: Democrats will claim that it proves that Trump is basically a dictator, while Republicans will say that Trump was only doing his job in pushing for the investigation of a credible case of corruption. (IMO the truth is somewhere in the middle here, but the truth doesn't matter in politics.) If no other facts appear making this a bigger deal, then I think that Trump will come out even cleaner from this than he did from the Mueller report, while Biden will be substantially hurt.

Trump would have to literally strangle a baby on live TV in order for him to be convicted of anything in the Senate. Even if he'd said in the transcript, "Biden is a political threat to me. If and only if you fabricate & publish official Ukrainian reports making him look bad, I promise to use my authority as president to give you military aid and provide other favors," he'd still probably be acquitted. (Though in that case it might end up being a political win for the Democrats.)

[squatz1]

I dunno. Sounds pretty bad. Sounds like Trump is using his position of the presidency to ask another president to investigate his political rival. I'm not the only one who thinks this.
...
But as we all know, even when Trump loses, he wins. I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

It'll be another thing like the Mueller report: Democrats will claim that it proves that Trump is basically a dictator, while Republicans will say that Trump was only doing his job in pushing for the investigation of a credible case of corruption. (IMO the truth is somewhere in the middle here, but the truth doesn't matter in politics.) If no other facts appear making this a bigger deal, then I think that Trump will come out even cleaner from this than he did from the Mueller report, while Biden will be substantially hurt.

Trump would have to literally strangle a baby on live TV in order for him to be convicted of anything in the Senate. Even if he'd said in the transcript, "Biden is a political threat to me. If and only if you fabricate & publish official Ukrainian reports him look bad, I promise to use my authority as president to give you military aid and provide other favors," he'd still probably be acquitted. (Though in that case it might end up being a political win for the Democrats.)

I think that this is bad timing on the fact of the Dems.

They had a real chance to do this, and support from their causus on the fact that Donald Trump has obstructed justice. As there had been multiple times throughout the Mueller investigation where the guy had obstructed (If I'm not mistaken, that's what the whole second half of the report was about?)

This -- in my mind -- is a nothing burger. Trump is saying that the clear conflict of interest between Biden being the point man on the Ukraine, and Bidens son working for a company that had been under scrutiny from Ukrainian officials - then this just dissapearing, is suspicious.

I don't agree with Trump bringing it up in a call. But it doesn't seem like anything had come out of that phone call anyway. Seems like Trump had been doing what Trump does, and spit-balling, with nothing coming out of it.

Both sides are wrong here. I just don't think this rises to an impeachable offense by the POTUS.

[theymos]

They had a real chance to do this, and support from their causus on the fact that Donald Trump has obstructed justice.

They could impeach him over real things, like:
 - Waging wars without a declaration from congress.
 - Supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen.
 - Emoluments issues with Trump's hotels, etc.
 - Wiretapping and other executive overreach.

But they don't want to impeach him for this sort of stuff because Democratic presidents have done the same things (even emoluments), and furthermore they like having an all-powerful presidency which they can exploit when they get into power and use as a scapegoat when they're out of power. So instead of pushing a powerful impeachment case which the public could actually get behind like, "bombs made in the US are as we speak being used to blow up children, at Trump's order and without congressional approval," the Dems instead search for these little "gotcha!" things which are totally Trump-specific and meaningless in any wider context, and which nobody actually cares about.

One of the most harmful trends has been the centralization of power into the presidency. Donald Trump is the ultimate head of an organization with ~4 million employees, and congress has in the past and present basically given him free reign to do whatever he wants with this insane amount of power. I'd love it if outrage over Trump leads to removal of executive powers and more skepticism of the status quo, but so far I'm not seeing any effective move in this direction.

IMO there's some chance (not a high chance, but some) that the loser of the next election will attack the legitimacy of the election, which will result in some serious chaos not seen in our lifetimes. And this will just be ridiculous bickering over who the next emperor will be, rather than actually trying to fix the problem at its source by making the presidency less powerful or otherwise fixing things fundamentally.

[nutildah]

So if in my opinion the memo looks fine, let me ask this. How would someone like Trump ask ANYTHING of another president, such that it could not be accused that he was asking for help in "investigating a political rival?" The only way I can see is for him to stay quiet.

To answer your question, he could have said ANYTHING other than "Can you please investigate Biden?" Basically it was extremely tacky to bring up Biden during what was supposed to be a congratulatory phone call and ask for help. Of course Trump being Trump said the phone call was "perfect."  

There is no give-me-this and i'll-give-you-that in that conversation. There are no threats or anything that could be construed that way...

I realize that, and legally speaking you are correct. Which is why Trump's handlers cleared him to release the memo. However, when Bill Lumberg asks you to come in and work on the weekend, you do it if you know what's good for you.


"Yeah if you could just go ahead and investigate my political rival for me, that would be just great."

Lumberg isn't making any demands, nor is he making any promises. He's just implying that something needs to be done. And if you know what's good for you, you'll do it. Of course the relationship between the two parties isn't boss/employee, but the inference being made is relatively the same. Nothing illegal going on, but it is tacky as fuck.

RAR!

You're a steaming bowl of nuts. I don't even like Biden.

[TECSHARE]

So if in my opinion the memo looks fine, let me ask this. How would someone like Trump ask ANYTHING of another president, such that it could not be accused that he was asking for help in "investigating a political rival?" The only way I can see is for him to stay quiet.

To answer your question, he could have said ANYTHING other than "Can you please investigate Biden?" Basically it was extremely tacky to bring up Biden during what was supposed to be a congratulatory phone call and ask for help. Of course Trump being Trump said the phone call was "perfect."  

There is no give-me-this and i'll-give-you-that in that conversation. There are no threats or anything that could be construed that way...

I realize that, and legally speaking you are correct. Which is why Trump's handlers cleared him to release the memo. However, when Bill Lumberg asks you to come in and work on the weekend, you do it if you know what's good for you.

https://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/9ef6/screens_feature3-1.jpg
"Yeah if you could just go ahead and investigate my political rival for me, that would be just great."

Lumberg isn't making any demands, nor is he making any promises. He's just implying that something needs to be done. And if you know what's good for you, you'll do it. Of course the relationship between the two parties isn't boss/employee, but the inference being made is relatively the same.

RAR!

You're a steaming bowl of nuts. I don't even like Biden.

I see, so now Trump's crime is being tacky? No one said you liked Biden, but you have made it more than apparent you suffer from Trump derangement syndrome. According to you the fact that Trump asked for an investigation into corruption that happened during the previous administration is a crime while a vice president explicitly demanding the removal of an investigator looking into the illegal activities of his son "or else" is less of an issue clearly demonstrates your hypocrisy.

Three years of politically motivated unending accusations and investigations over Russiagate resulting in nothing is no issue at all, but a single request for an investigation and this is grounds for impeachment is it? You are a steaming bowl of horse shit.

[TECSHARE]

You're a steaming bowl of nuts. I don't even like Biden.

I see, so now Trump's crime is being tacky?

Did I say it was a crime?

Three years of politically motivated unending accusations and investigations over Russiagate resulting in nothing is no issue at all, but a single request for an investigation and this is grounds for impeachment is it? You are a steaming bowl of horse shit.

Hey asshole. Did I begin the impeachment inquiry? Again, this is what I said:

I don't think its enough to proceed with the impeachment, or if they do, he will probably be acquitted.

Get a grip.

Irrelevant. You pretend to be against politically motivated investigations but I haven't seen a peep of protest from you over the Russiagate clusterfuck over 3 years, but this is worthy of criticism? You still are pushing the narrative that the real issue is Trump's action's and not Biden's.

[nutildah]

Irrelevant.

How is pointing out the several ways in which you are mistaken irrelevant?

You pretend to be against politically motivated investigations but I haven't seen a peep of protest from you over the Russiagate clusterfuck over 3 years, but this is worthy of criticism?

I stayed out of the whole Russia mess because I could care less about it. This issue speaks directly about Trump's character. Which is slimy. Nothing new here, or technically illegal.

You still are pushing the narrative that the real issue is Trump's action's and not Biden's.

Wrong again. As I've been saying since the beginning, both are non-issues.

I just realized you've now shifted the focus entirely on me. This is lame. I'll be back when something new happens.

[TECSHARE]

Irrelevant.

How is pointing out the several ways in which you are mistaken irrelevant?

You pretend to be against politically motivated investigations but I haven't seen a peep of protest from you over the Russiagate clusterfuck over 3 years, but this is worthy of criticism?

I stayed out of the whole Russia mess because I could care less about it. This issue speaks directly about Trump's character. Which is slimy. Nothing new here, or technically illegal.

You still are pushing the narrative that the real issue is Trump's action's and not Biden's.

Wrong again. As I've been saying since the beginning, both are non-issues.

I just realized you've now shifted the focus entirely on me. This is lame. I'll be back when something new happens.

Exactly, you didn't give a fuck about these kind of politically motivated investigations, that is until they aligned with your values, then suddenly it is worth calling out demonstrating you don't actually hold this principle. "both are non-issues" but lets talk about how Trump doesn't look good and conveniently create false equivalency between being tacky and actual corruption. Not sure how I am going to point out how full of shit you are without focusing on your double standards. Of course you haven't focused on me personally at all during this exchange right? Standards are only for everyone else are they?

[Spendulus]

So if in my opinion the memo looks fine, let me ask this. How would someone like Trump ask ANYTHING of another president, such that it could not be accused that he was asking for help in "investigating a political rival?" The only way I can see is for him to stay quiet.

To answer your question, he could have said ANYTHING other than "Can you please investigate Biden?" Basically it was extremely tacky to bring up Biden during what was supposed to be a congratulatory phone call and ask for help. Of course Trump being Trump said the phone call was "perfect."  

There is no give-me-this and i'll-give-you-that in that conversation. There are no threats or anything that could be construed that way...

I realize that, and legally speaking you are correct. Which is why Trump's handlers cleared him to release the memo. However, when Bill Lumberg asks you to come in and work on the weekend, you do it if you know what's good for you.


"Yeah if you could just go ahead and investigate my political rival for me, that would be just great."

Lumberg isn't making any demands, nor is he making any promises. He's just implying that something needs to be done. And if you know what's good for you, you'll do it. Of course the relationship between the two parties isn't boss/employee, but the inference being made is relatively the same. Nothing illegal going on, but it is tacky as fuck.
....

I agree with your point of view here (with one exception to follow), but that is why I phrased my question the way I did. Because the only thing that would have satisfied media-spin crazed Democrats would be for him to have not mentioned it at all.

But there is one more issue, which is that in that same breathe Trump said that he understood that the prosecutor who was fired was a good man, and that perhaps he was fired unfairly. I'm unable to exclude this from the analysis, and I agree with it. If the guy was fired because of pressure from the US former administration related to the VP's son's affairs, I would like to see him reinstated with full back pay.

This has been overlooked in the discussion, and yet the prosecutor does seem to be an innocent victim in these power plays.

Then again the situation may have been more complex than that and we don't have the whole story. For example  Biden may have been confronted with a coercive demand and responded with a bigger coercive demand.

[squatz1]

They had a real chance to do this, and support from their causus on the fact that Donald Trump has obstructed justice.

They could impeach him over real things, like:
 - Waging wars without a declaration from congress.
 - Supporting the Saudi genocide in Yemen.
 - Emoluments issues with Trump's hotels, etc.
 - Wiretapping and other executive overreach.

But they don't want to impeach him for this sort of stuff because Democratic presidents have done the same things (even emoluments), and furthermore they like having an all-powerful presidency which they can exploit when they get into power and use as a scapegoat when they're out of power. So instead of pushing a powerful impeachment case which the public could actually get behind like, "bombs made in the US are as we speak being used to blow up children, at Trump's order and without congressional approval," the Dems instead search for these little "gotcha!" things which are totally Trump-specific and meaningless in any wider context, and which nobody actually cares about.

One of the most harmful trends has been the centralization of power into the presidency. Donald Trump is the ultimate head of an organization with ~4 million employees, and congress has in the past and present basically given him free reign to do whatever he wants with this insane amount of power. I'd love it if outrage over Trump leads to removal of executive powers and more skepticism of the status quo, but so far I'm not seeing any effective move in this direction.

IMO there's some chance (not a high chance, but some) that the loser of the next election will attack the legitimacy of the election, which will result in some serious chaos not seen in our lifetimes. And this will just be ridiculous bickering over who the next emperor will be, rather than actually trying to fix the problem at its source by making the presidency less powerful or otherwise fixing things fundamentally.

Right as I was reading your first few points, I was thinking the SAME exact thing. There's no way in hell that the Dems are going to go after him for that sort of stuff, because all of those things are common things that the POTUS does at this point. Not something we like to admit everyday, but Congress has ceded large amounts of control to the President for no real reason -- just because it helps their party?

The President should NEVER be this powerful, but we're so caught up in the day to day bullshit that we're never going to attack the real issues in government.

Some of these include but are not limited to
1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone.
2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time.
3. Congress fails to do much of anything.

[BADecker]

Read the article to see where the emphases are placed.


Impeachment Odds Plummet As Trump Releases Ukraine Transcript

The Trump administration has released a White House transcript of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the heart of a whistleblower complaint.

Among other things, the transcript shows Trump discussing former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

Here's the 'pressure' Trump put on Zelensky:

"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

Earlier in the conversation, Trump says: "I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

The Trump administration has released a White House transcript of a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the heart of a whistleblower complaint.

[Spendulus]

....
Some of these include but are not limited to
1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone.
2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time.
3. Congress fails to do much of anything.

1. Really? How about that measly 5B for the wall?
2. This is 100% the voters' fault.
3. A feature, not a bug.

[squatz1]

....
Some of these include but are not limited to
1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone.
2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time.
3. Congress fails to do much of anything.

1. Really? How about that measly 5B for the wall?
2. This is 100% the voters' fault.
3. A feature, not a bug.

Yeah, I think the President is wrong here. But many presidents before him have also abused the office of the Presidency -- so what do you want him to do? Sit there and be the one President in history that doesn't use the powers that Congress has literally handed over to him.

I wasn't attacking any one particular President in my post -- I was talking about overarching ideas.

Congress was supposed to do things -- even if it wasn't supposed to be done fast. They literally get little to nothing done due to hyper partianship and a gridlocked congress.

We have issues in this country that Congress can try to fix -- but we'll never get to any of that when the President is being investigated for 15 other things by all of the committess in Congress that are supposed to be working for the nation instead of working for their party above everything.

[TECSHARE]

....
Some of these include but are not limited to
1. The President being immensely powerful, being able to do whatever he wants with his pen and his phone.
2. Congress continuously failing to limit the deficit. Both parties yell about it when they don't hold the Presidency (or Congress) but when they actually take control they don't care enough to actually ensure the country is saved for long periods of time.
3. Congress fails to do much of anything.

1. Really? How about that measly 5B for the wall?
2. This is 100% the voters' fault.
3. A feature, not a bug.

Yeah, I think the President is wrong here. But many presidents before him have also abused the office of the Presidency -- so what do you want him to do? Sit there and be the one President in history that doesn't use the powers that Congress has literally handed over to him.

I wasn't attacking any one particular President in my post -- I was talking about overarching ideas.

Congress was supposed to do things -- even if it wasn't supposed to be done fast. They literally get little to nothing done due to hyper partianship and a gridlocked congress.

We have issues in this country that Congress can try to fix -- but we'll never get to any of that when the President is being investigated for 15 other things by all of the committess in Congress that are supposed to be working for the nation instead of working for their party above everything.

Lets assume for a second that the accusations of corruption against the Bidens are legitimate. How exactly should Trump have done this?

[eddie13]

Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html


More deepstate coupe attempt..

[TECSHARE]

Whistle-Blower Is a C.I.A. Officer Who Was Detailed to the White House
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/us/politics/who-is-whistleblower.html


More deepstate coupe attempt..

Apparently his lawyer has also worked for the Clintons in the past...

[Spendulus]

...

We have issues in this country that Congress can try to fix -- but we'll never get to any of that when the President is being investigated for 15 other things by all of the committess in Congress that are supposed to be working for the nation instead of working for their party above everything.

My opinion is that the Democrats are currently destroying their party.

If they believe they are "working for their party" that's foolish and naive.

International, outside influences are definitely at work in this.

[TECSHARE]

...

We have issues in this country that Congress can try to fix -- but we'll never get to any of that when the President is being investigated for 15 other things by all of the committess in Congress that are supposed to be working for the nation instead of working for their party above everything.

My opinion is that the Democrats are currently destroying their party.

If they believe they are "working for their party" that's foolish and naive.

International, outside influences are definitely at work in this.

I will give you a hint. It starts with C and ends with hina.

[eddie13]

Saw this..




https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

[nutildah]

If the guy was fired because of pressure from the US former administration related to the VP's son's affairs, I would like to see him reinstated with full back pay.

This has been overlooked in the discussion, and yet the prosecutor does seem to be an innocent victim in these power plays.

Then again the situation may have been more complex than that and we don't have the whole story. For example  Biden may have been confronted with a coercive demand and responded with a bigger coercive demand.

This is a fair and logical viewpoint. Yes, its true none of us know exactly what happened, and its easier to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on our own political leanings.

The way I read thing was the prosecutor was (supposed to be) fired for being corrupt and reasons wholly unrelated to Biden's son, and of course he would say otherwise in an official statement. But we just don't know the whole story at this point.

Its going to be hard to find a non-partisan source that can put all the information together without introducing political bias; perhaps impossible.

It was personally fun for me to watch Adam Schiff grill Joseph McGuire, from an entertainment standpoint, and I still believe Trump is going to come out of this a lot more battered than Biden, but we can only wait and see what happens next.

[TECSHARE]

If the guy was fired because of pressure from the US former administration related to the VP's son's affairs, I would like to see him reinstated with full back pay.

This has been overlooked in the discussion, and yet the prosecutor does seem to be an innocent victim in these power plays.

Then again the situation may have been more complex than that and we don't have the whole story. For example  Biden may have been confronted with a coercive demand and responded with a bigger coercive demand.

This is a fair and logical viewpoint. Yes, its true none of us know exactly what happened, and its easier to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on our own political leanings.

The way I read thing was the prosecutor was (supposed to be) fired for being corrupt and reasons wholly unrelated to Biden's son, and of course he would say otherwise in an official statement. But we just don't know the whole story at this point.

Its going to be hard to find a non-partisan source that can put all the information together without introducing political bias; perhaps impossible.

It was personally fun for me to watch Adam Schiff grill Joseph McGuire, from an entertainment standpoint, and I still believe Trump is going to come out of this a lot more battered than Biden, but we can only wait and see what happens next.

What could have Ukraine possibly have used to coerce Biden unless he was up to something illegal? This false equivalency as if this could go either way is absolutely retarded. The corruption from the Bidens has long been documented and available to anyone who doesn't expect to be spoon fed like an invalid. The ENTIRE PURPOSE of pointing the finger at Trump here is the classic Saul Alinsky 101 tactic of accusing your opponents of the crimes you yourself are guilty of to confuse the situation and give any accusations the appearance of being empty and retaliatory when the exact opposite is true.

Trump didn't do a damned thing wrong in this case, or the thousands of other proven empty accusations against him. The corrupt old guard is staring down the end of a rope and are gasping for their last breaths of air trying desperately to save their own asses by creating as much chaos and confusion as possible. The only people still entertaining this narrative are either confirming their bias or are too brain dead to have even a moderate mount of critical thought that some one else didn't instruct them to have. This has nothing to do with partisanship. This is about reality vs fiction, and this false equivalency is just an excuse to not have to think critically and to fence sit because it is more convenient to not pick sides and throw your hands up and pretend no one knows.

[Astargath]

You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?

[nutildah]

You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?

I'm sure Washington Democrats would answer that there has been suspicion of crimes all along, and it is their duty to carry out such investigations. Unfortunately for them they are indeed stigmatized with a bit of "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome for constantly shitting their pants about everything Trump has done over the last 3 years. So if something actually damning did happen, nobody is going to believe them.

I have yet to see anybody formally accuse Biden of a crime.

[Daniel91]

You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?

A decision approved in parliament cannot be illegal.
In terms of abuse, it is a very stretchable category.
What about illegal immigrants on the border with Mexico?
Or with civilians in the Yemeni war?
The president of America is the most powerful man in the world, so it's too daunting to say he was abused.
Let the legal process come to an end and determine the truth.

[Spendulus]

You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?

A decision approved in parliament cannot be illegal.
In terms of abuse, it is a very stretchable category.
What about illegal immigrants on the border with Mexico?
Or with civilians in the Yemeni war?
The president of America is the most powerful man in the world, so it's too daunting to say he was abused.
Let the legal process come to an end and determine the truth.

I am of the opinion that the stuff Trump has been putting up with long ago degenerated into simple harassment.

[TECSHARE]

You would think at this point, these 'investigations' would be illegal. Sure you can investigate someone when there is suspicion of a crime but when does it become harrasment?

I'm sure Washington Democrats would answer that there has been suspicion of crimes all along, and it is their duty to carry out such investigations. Unfortunately for them they are indeed stigmatized with a bit of "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome for constantly shitting their pants about everything Trump has done over the last 3 years. So if something actually damning did happen, nobody is going to believe them.

I have yet to see anybody formally accuse Biden of a crime.

I know you are a fan of using suspicion alone as a basis for condemning people, but the judicial system requires facts, none of which the Democrat party has ever presented to support their position. It is their duty to serve the nation, not to erase the 2016 election results at all costs. The stigma they have is completely of their own creation. If they actually had any facts or evidence to present people would listen, but they never do.

Biden most certainly has been accused of many well documented crimes. Regarding legal action never being taken against Biden, who are you going to make a report to about a mob boss when you know he owns the sheriff? All that will mean is your ass. That is of course until a new sheriff is in town who is willing and able to bring these crimes to light. Most people don't understand the depth of corruption we are talking about here.

The USA has suffered an 8 year long (or longer) coup, and those responsible assumed they would again have control in 2016, but they failed. Now that those with the genuine interests of Americans at heart are again in control, there still remains many of the old corrupt guard still in place, and there is about to be a controlled burn to route them out and bring their complicity in this plot to light.  Why would people complicit in these crimes work to expose them? This goes for the media as well.

[PopoJeff]

Did anyone else stop to consider........ this "whistleblower" reportedly got the info 2nd or third hand.  Was someone in that chain of rumor a Trump plant ?, passing word of 'there's impeachable evidence over there' ? All with the intent to bait the Dems into their typical spastic feeding frenzy, which in the end, only really bought the spotlight back onto the Biden crimes committed there.

Look over here for bad Trump stuff.
Looks there and only finds Biden bad stuff. (That everyone forgot about)

I think Trump cat-fished the idiot Dems, knowing they'd trip over themselves for "evidence". (While forgetting that they buried the Biden crime), only to re-expose the Biden crimes.

Hook, line, and sinker

[nutildah]

Did anyone else stop to consider........ this "whistleblower" reportedly got the info 2nd or third hand.  Was someone in that chain of rumor a Trump plant ?, passing word of 'there's impeachable evidence over there' ? All with the intent to bait the Dems into their typical spastic feeding frenzy, which in the end, only really bought the spotlight back onto the Biden crimes committed there.

Look over here for bad Trump stuff.
Looks there and only finds Biden bad stuff. (That everyone forgot about)

I think Trump cat-fished the idiot Dems, knowing they'd trip over themselves for "evidence". (While forgetting that they buried the Biden crime), only to re-expose the Biden crimes.

Bad Biden stuff has been out for 3 years, and nothing ever became of it. If something could have, it would have by now.

Bad Trump stuff (in the context of Ukraine) has been out for less than a week now and its already been the grounds for an impeachment inquiry.

Perhaps one set of bad stuff is actually worse than the other... Just perhaps.

[TECSHARE]

Did anyone else stop to consider........ this "whistleblower" reportedly got the info 2nd or third hand.  Was someone in that chain of rumor a Trump plant ?, passing word of 'there's impeachable evidence over there' ? All with the intent to bait the Dems into their typical spastic feeding frenzy, which in the end, only really bought the spotlight back onto the Biden crimes committed there.

Look over here for bad Trump stuff.
Looks there and only finds Biden bad stuff. (That everyone forgot about)

I think Trump cat-fished the idiot Dems, knowing they'd trip over themselves for "evidence". (While forgetting that they buried the Biden crime), only to re-expose the Biden crimes.

Bad Biden stuff has been out for 3 years, and nothing ever became of it. If something could have, it would have by now.

Bad Trump stuff (in the context of Ukraine) has been out for less than a week now and its already been the grounds for an impeachment inquiry.

Perhaps one set of bad stuff is actually worse than the other... Just perhaps.

What bad Trump stuff? So far all I have seen is 100% speculation and accusations based on nothing. They would have started an impeachment hearing over an excessively loud fart if they thought it would work. This is evidence of nothing but the democrat's desperation. Actually the Biden stuff has been in public since he was in office. Now what could possibly stop the prosecution of a very powerful connected corrupt man while he still held office?

Furthermore you pretend as if the dems wouldn't be screeching autistically calling it retribution for Russiagate if this was brought to light any sooner. Three years of unending obsessive scrutiny over Trump supposed election meddling, turnabout is fair play. That is of course unless you never gave a fuck about election meddling and only cared about the part that made Trump look suspect.

[snakey]

Trump, Narendra Modi, Borris Johnson are Alpha male. It is speculated that atleast 35 Republican Party members are in favour to vote against Trump, but i fear this is just the buzz and Trump will come out of this situation more stronger than ever.

For those who have not read Trump's hilarious tweet then read it here : https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor  , He openly calls it Sexual Presidential Harassment.

[PopoJeff]

Wondering...... just wondering here......

   If maybe congress should get back to work doing what they wered hire for. Write and create bills and laws.  Instead of the never-ending witch hunt of nothingness.  They've wasted so much time and money looking for that VHS tape that Trump did rewind before returning it to Blockbuster.

    The only thing Democrats have accomplished in the last 3 years, is to piss off everyone who isnt a staunch left-wing dingbat.  Now, even the moderate middle will be motivated to vote a straight R ticket. Everyone is sick and tired of hearing the non-stop bitching and whining from the left.  Get back to doing what you were elected for !

[Spendulus]

If the guy was fired because of pressure from the US former administration related to the VP's son's affairs, I would like to see him reinstated with full back pay.

This has been overlooked in the discussion, and yet the prosecutor does seem to be an innocent victim in these power plays.

Then again the situation may have been more complex than that and we don't have the whole story. For example  Biden may have been confronted with a coercive demand and responded with a bigger coercive demand.

This is a fair and logical viewpoint. Yes, its true none of us know exactly what happened, and its easier to make assumptions and jump to conclusions based on our own political leanings.

The way I read thing was the prosecutor was (supposed to be) fired for being corrupt and reasons wholly unrelated to Biden's son, and of course he would say otherwise in an official statement. But we just don't know the whole story at this point.
....

I just watched the video where Biden boasts about coercing them to fire the prosecutor, though.

Looks pretty damning.

[Astargath]

Wondering...... just wondering here......

   If maybe congress should get back to work doing what they wered hire for. Write and create bills and laws.  Instead of the never-ending witch hunt of nothingness.  They've wasted so much time and money looking for that VHS tape that Trump did rewind before returning it to Blockbuster.

    The only thing Democrats have accomplished in the last 3 years, is to piss off everyone who isnt a staunch left-wing dingbat.  Now, even the moderate middle will be motivated to vote a straight R ticket. Everyone is sick and tired of hearing the non-stop bitching and whining from the left.  Get back to doing what you were elected for !

Exactly, how can anyone trust the Democrats when the only thing they want is power? Why aren't they simply working hard to come up with new and optimized regulations, laws, etc to improve the country? Nah, instead, their political plan is to remove Trump.

[nutildah]

I just watched the video where Biden boasts about coercing them to fire the prosecutor, though.

Looks pretty damning.

The video's been out for a while though, and nobody cared about it before this whole Trump Ukraine phone call stuff came to light. I could be mistaken but it sounds like part of the condition for release of the loan was that they fire this particular prosecutor guy. We don't know if it had anything to do with Biden's son -- asserting that it did (at this phase) is pure conjecture. What we do know for sure is that Trump asked a foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.

I suppose one good thing that happened is the whole affair shed light on how rampant political cronyism and nepotism is... Seems like Hunter Biden had no qualifications to have his particular job there whatsoever, and that he was just there because his last name is "Biden." Still not a crime, but it is the most unattractive thing about Biden in my eyes thus far (other than him already being pretty milquetoast and uninspiring as a politician).

[Astargath]

I just watched the video where Biden boasts about coercing them to fire the prosecutor, though.

Looks pretty damning.

The video's been out for a while though, and nobody cared about it before this whole Trump Ukraine phone call stuff came to light. I could be mistaken but it sounds like part of the condition for release of the loan was that they fire this particular prosecutor guy. We don't know if it had anything to do with Biden's son -- asserting that it did (at this phase) is pure conjecture. What we do know for sure is that Trump asked a foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.

I suppose one good thing that happened is the whole affair shed light on how rampant political cronyism and nepotism is... Seems like Hunter Biden had no qualifications to have his particular job there whatsoever, and that he was just there because his last name is "Biden." Still not a crime, but it is the most unattractive thing about Biden in my eyes thus far (other than him already being pretty milquetoast and uninspiring as a politician).

''foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.'' No, we don't, nowhere in the transcript says that LOL, nothing about political dirt on his opponent.

[Spendulus]

I just watched the video where Biden boasts about coercing them to fire the prosecutor, though.

Looks pretty damning.

The video's been out for a while though, and nobody cared about it before this whole Trump Ukraine phone call stuff came to light. I could be mistaken but it sounds like part of the condition for release of the loan was that they fire this particular prosecutor guy. We don't know if it had anything to do with Biden's son -- asserting that it did (at this phase) is pure conjecture. What we do know for sure is that Trump asked a foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.

I suppose one good thing that happened is the whole affair shed light on how rampant political cronyism and nepotism is... Seems like Hunter Biden had no qualifications to have his particular job there whatsoever, and that he was just there because his last name is "Biden." Still not a crime, but it is the most unattractive thing about Biden in my eyes thus far (other than him already being pretty milquetoast and uninspiring as a politician).

Earlier you mentioned, regarding Trump even asking or bringing up the subject of Biden, his son and the prosecutor events, that Trump saying ANYTHING is fundamentally coercive.

I have a comment on that. It's trump that when in conversation between very powerful people, there is an element of high pressure. But here we get into a realm of the grammar and tactics of "Diplomacy." There is a right way to ask someone, and there is a right way to answer (both in the positive and the negative.) These are well understood and these methods are literally thousands of years old.

There is no way that anything negative can be constructed from the conversation of Trump in question.

By contrast Biden comes across and sounds like a crude, low life gangster.

The tactic here is to accuse Trump of exactly what the accuser is guilty of. A la Sal Alinsky tactics.

I'm personally, sick of it. Lying over and over for political advantage, to a scale really never seen before. The initial Russia hoax, the Kavanagh circus, now this.

My contributions to Trump and the Republicans who have came to his party, albeit late and after his election are going to be 10x those in the past.

[Spendulus]

''foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.'' No, we don't, nowhere in the transcript says that LOL, nothing about political dirt on his opponent.

What does this sound like to you?



He's looking for information that will put Biden in a good light?

No. He says "It sounds horrible to me."

Regardless, why is he talking to him about Giuliani? Isn't Giuliani supposed to be Trumps "personal" lawyer? If he really was looking into corruption from a standpoint of national interest, why insist that your personal lawyer meet with the president of a foreign nation?....

The Ukranian brought up Giuliani, not Trump.

RE "looking for information that will put Biden in a good light" etc, the firing of the prosecutor stopped the finding and assessment of information, period. Good or bad. That's what Biden did. I have to say here that I couldn't care less if the findings were good or bad. They are related to the conduct of Biden's son, who is not a political figure. But it matters to Biden.

Why doesn't that sound "horrible?"

What's certainly horrible is the orchestrated harassment of Trump via a fictional dossier, followed by the orchestrated harassment in the Kavanaugh hearing accompanied by a series of high questionable and outright fictional complaints, followed by this complaint about this phone call, leaked by a party who didn't even know the content but had only heard a rumor. We call that "heresay." This is a trend of consistent behavior at this point. Used to be, this was only seen in the weeks before a presidential election, when the Dems would pull at the last minute some dirt.

Now it seems to be non stop.

[BADecker]

^^^ The scary answer is, to completely bring down the USA.

We have a President who is worshipped by some like a king or the Pope. But foundational law in the USA is built on the 12-person jury, and jury nullification. The king-President can be overruled by the 12-person jury.

What this means is, the people formally have the power, even though they don't use it much. It's written right into the foundational documents of government. Amendments 6 and 7 show the power direct, and Amendment 9 helps to direct people to the laws and rights that they had before the Constitution... laws and rights that are still existing in power today.

That's a pretty solid foundation. So, whatever is being promoted in the USA, by people of power throughout the world, is designed to bring the strongest country in the world down, because the bottom-line power in this country is under the control of the people rather than dictators.

[nutildah]

The Ukranian brought up Giuliani, not Trump.

That's correct but I don't understand why Giuliani is involved at all... If you're doing something for the sake of national interest, why involve your personal lawyer? Obviously Giuliani was previously talking to the Ukraine president... why? Just doesn't make sense to me...

RE "looking for information that will put Biden in a good light" etc, the firing of the prosecutor stopped the finding and assessment of information, period. Good or bad. That's what Biden did. I have to say here that I couldn't care less if the findings were good or bad. They are related to the conduct of Biden's son, who is not a political figure. But it matters to Biden.

Why doesn't that sound "horrible?"

What evidence do you have that they are related to the conduct of Biden's son? It would appear that the investigation started prior to Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.

Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014-2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV

Actually, this is a great article that tackles the other side, but the author concludes that it requires a much deeper investigation into the matter before any conclusions can be drawn:

Today, two questions remain.

One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.

The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility. And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.

[Spendulus]

The Ukranian brought up Giuliani, not Trump.

That's correct but I don't understand why Giuliani is involved at all... If you're doing something for the sake of national interest, why involve your personal lawyer? Obviously Giuliani was previously talking to the Ukraine president... why? Just doesn't make sense to me...

I'm sure that's an answerable question.

RE "looking for information that will put Biden in a good light" etc, the firing of the prosecutor stopped the finding and assessment of information, period. Good or bad. That's what Biden did. I have to say here that I couldn't care less if the findings were good or bad. They are related to the conduct of Biden's son, who is not a political figure. But it matters to Biden.

Why doesn't that sound "horrible?"

What evidence do you have that they are related to the conduct of Biden's son? It would appear that the investigation started prior to Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.....

Post #60 and... https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

The evidence is the sworn testimony of the fired prosecutor.

I don't know if Biden's threat to with hold over a billion in US Aid unless his son was let off the hook is illegal under US law.

Something that's gone under the radar is that in the same conversation, Trump asks the Ukranian to look into the matter of the DNC server, which he says is in the hands of a Ukranian oligarche.

[TECSHARE]

The video's been out for a while though, and nobody cared about it before this whole Trump Ukraine phone call stuff came to light. I could be mistaken but it sounds like part of the condition for release of the loan was that they fire this particular prosecutor guy. We don't know if it had anything to do with Biden's son -- asserting that it did (at this phase) is pure conjecture. What we do know for sure is that Trump asked a foreign leader for the favor of digging up dirt on a political opponent.

I suppose one good thing that happened is the whole affair shed light on how rampant political cronyism and nepotism is... Seems like Hunter Biden had no qualifications to have his particular job there whatsoever, and that he was just there because his last name is "Biden." Still not a crime, but it is the most unattractive thing about Biden in my eyes thus far (other than him already being pretty milquetoast and uninspiring as a politician).

People certainly did care. Unfortunately the media as well as the top levels of government were so corrupt that even if some one did try to bring attention to it, they would have accidentally choked on a handful of bullets.  The US intelligence agencies had just got done orchestrating a coup in Ukraine, I wonder why that would make the locals weary of bringing prosecution after all of that bloodshed? Of course Trump trying to enforce the law, looking into high level corruption is suspect, but anything about Biden, now well that is pure conjecture!

What does this sound like to you?

https://i.imgur.com/vs9rAv2.png

He's looking for information that will put Biden in a good light?

No. He says "It sounds horrible to me."

Regardless, why is he talking to him about Giuliani? Isn't Giuliani supposed to be Trumps "personal" lawyer? If he really was looking into corruption from a standpoint of national interest, why insist that your personal lawyer meet with the president of a foreign nation?

The whole thing is absurd. Trump is screwed. This is the turd that broke the camel's back. It turns out the camel couldn't carry an infinite amount of turds.

There is no way that anything negative can be constructed from the conversation of Trump in question.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine. At the end of the day, they are only that: opinions.

It sounds to me like he is a president doing his job going after high level corruption of government officials selling influence. This is something that not only is a well known pattern of behavior with Biden, but Obama, as well as the Clintons and others going back as long as they have had influence to sell. He is using Giulian because he has not only been around long enough to know all the dirt and how this mafia operates, but he is some one he has a personal relationship with and can trust. When trying to bust up an international criminal cartel within the highest levels of government within the most powerful nation in the world, that is important.

Trump is in a great position, and he is looking better every day. The only people who think he is screwed let Rachel Maddow do their thinking for them.

That's correct but I don't understand why Giuliani is involved at all... If you're doing something for the sake of national interest, why involve your personal lawyer? Obviously Giuliani was previously talking to the Ukraine president... why? Just doesn't make sense to me...

Well shit, Nutillduhh doesn't understand, obviously there is no good reason then!

What evidence do you have that they are related to the conduct of Biden's son? It would appear that the investigation started prior to Hunter Biden's involvement with Burisma.

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

“Changes to the board of Burisma Limited, which are currently the object of international attention, took place only in May 2014, and therefore are not and never were the subject of (the anti-corruption bureau’s) investigation,” the bureau’s statement said.

Hunter Biden was a director on Burisma’s board from 2014-2018, according to documents filed by the company in Cyprus, where it is registered.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris/ukraine-agency-says-allegations-against-burisma-cover-period-before-biden-joined-idUSKBN1WC1LV

Actually, this is a great article that tackles the other side, but the author concludes that it requires a much deeper investigation into the matter before any conclusions can be drawn:

Today, two questions remain.

One is whether it was ethically improper or even illegal for Biden to intervene to fire the prosecutor handling Burisma’s case, given his son’s interests. That is one that requires more investigation and the expertise of lawyers.

The second is whether Biden has given the American people an honest accounting of what happened. The new documents I obtained raise serious doubts about his story’s credibility. And that’s an issue that needs to be resolved by voters.

What evidence do you have Trump was doing anything improper? He asked for an actual investigation into high level corruption that is of international significance. Clearly he is guilty! You know what that call was about, that was Trump essentially saying to the Ukraine president:

"Look I know our nation has been corrupt as fuck and has really harmed your nation, but I am not with those guys. Go ahead and do a legitimate investigation and I will make sure there aren't consequences like the last time you tried to do this."

Interesting we shouldn't jump to conclusions about Biden, but clearly based on nothing Trump is fucked!  You keep bringing up the timeline as if it is evidence in favor of Biden's innocence, it is not. Let me lay out the order of events for you.

A very corrupt company exists in Ukraine. The government is breathing down their necks. In walks Biden who offers to fix their problem for them. Biden's son gets some down payment money for the influence peddling. Joe gets the investigation shut down by demanding the canning of the lead prosecutor of the case. In exchange his son is placed in a very lucrative position on its board, a position for which ha has zero qualifications for.

Hunter is not even qualified to work at McDonald's let alone on a Ukrainian energy firm's board. He literally wouldn't be able to get a job at McDonald's with his drug record. The only significant thing about him is the influence his daddy is peddling. All the elements of a rock solid criminal prosecution are evident. Means, motive, and opportunity.

[Spendulus]

....
What evidence do you have Trump was doing anything improper? He asked for an actual investigation into high level corruption that is of international significance. Clearly he is guilty! You know what that call was about, that was Trump essentially saying to the Ukraine president:

"Look I know our nation has been corrupt as fuck and has really harmed your nation, but I am not with those guys. Go ahead and do a legitimate investigation and I will make sure there aren't consequences like the last time you tried to do this."

Interesting we shouldn't jump to conclusions about Biden, but clearly based on nothing Trump is fucked!  You keep bringing up the timeline as if it is evidence in favor of Biden's innocence, it is not. Let me lay out the order of events for you.

A very corrupt company exists in Ukraine. The government is breathing down their necks. In walks Biden who offers to fix their problem for them. Biden's son gets some down payment money for the influence peddling. Joe gets the investigation shut down by demanding the canning of the lead prosecutor of the case. In exchange his son is placed in a very lucrative position on its board, a position for which ha has zero qualifications for.

Hunter is not even qualified to work at McDonald's let alone on a Ukrainian energy firm's board. He literally wouldn't be able to get a job at McDonald's with his drug record. The only significant thing about him is the influence his daddy is peddling. All the elements of a rock solid criminal prosecution are evident. Means, motive, and opportunity.

However, I can see why the Bidens would like to get him over to the other side of the world...

Former Vice President Joe Biden’s surviving son, Hunter, hasn’t just dumped his wife for his late brother’s widow, he has squandered his family’s money on hookers, strip clubs and drugs....
“His spending rarely relates to legitimate family expenses, but focuses on his own travel (at times multiple hotel rooms on the same night), gifts for other women, alcohol, strip clubs, or other personal indulgences,” Kathleen Biden says of Hunter in the papers filed in Washington, DC, Superior Court on Feb. 23.
...
“Throughout the parties’ separation Mr. Biden has created financial concerns for the family by spending extravagantly on his own interests (including drugs, alcohol, prostitutes, strip clubs, and gifts for women with whom he has sexual relations), while leaving the family with no funds to pay legitimate bills,” Kathleen says of Hunter in the filing.

https://pagesix.com/2017/03/02/ex-claims-hunter-biden-blew-money-on-hookers-drugs/

[TECSHARE]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

[koshgel]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.

Nice source you chud.

[TECSHARE]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.

Nice source you chud.

As usual, not even an attempt to address any of the contents of the information, just a simple attack on the source (from a hacked account I might add). The usual weak failing attempt at refutation to be expected from the left because they have no actual principles or arguments.

[Spendulus]

....(from a hacked account I might add)....

I see that ... good find! Merited!

[nutildah]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.

Nice source you chud.

As usual, not even an attempt to address any of the contents of the information, just a simple attack on the source (from a hacked account I might add). The usual weak failing attempt at refutation to be expected from the left because they have no actual principles or arguments.

- gets upset about an "attack on the source"
- immediately attacks source of comment without trace of irony

"Rules for thee but not for mee, REEEEE......."

LoL.

So what is Pelosi doing that is illegal again?

I should start a poll, "What excuse will Trumptards use when Trump is impeached by the House?" Then list the obvious options.

[TECSHARE]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.

Nice source you chud.

As usual, not even an attempt to address any of the contents of the information, just a simple attack on the source (from a hacked account I might add). The usual weak failing attempt at refutation to be expected from the left because they have no actual principles or arguments.

- gets upset about an "attack on the source"
- immediately attacks source of comment without trace of irony

"Rules for thee but not for mee, REEEEE......."

LoL.

So what is Pelosi doing that is illegal again?

I should start a poll, "What excuse will Trumptards use when Trump is impeached by the House?" Then list the obvious options.

Exactly what am I to debate with an alt account presenting no argument except an attack on a source presented? Cute try at being clever, but no cigar.

"koshgel   2019-09-28      Right wing incel. Proceed with CAUTION!!!
koshgel   2019-09-28      TRUST SYSTEM ABUSER. PROCEED WITH CAUTION!!!
koshgel   2019-07-05      Bitter soul. One of those guys that never leaves his house. Mind is so warped that semen is basically coming out of his eyes.

Avoid interactions. Avoid trades. I wouldn't even use escrow. Mental stability is a serious factor with this person. "

Certainly looks like some one presenting a valid argument and clearly not just some pussy with a grudge using a hacked alt to settle a score.

[Spendulus]

"Pelosi’s House Rule Changes are Key Part of “Articles of Impeachment”, Being Drafted Over Next Two Weeks..."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pelosis-house-rule-changes-are-key-part-of-articles-of-impeachment-being-drafted-over-next-two-weeks/

Overall, The Last Refuge (Conservative Treehouse) far right biased and borderline questionable based on multiple failed fact checks. This source is one failed fact check from moving to the Questionable list.

Nice source you chud.

As usual, not even an attempt to address any of the contents of the information, just a simple attack on the source (from a hacked account I might add). The usual weak failing attempt at refutation to be expected from the left because they have no actual principles or arguments.

- gets upset about an "attack on the source"
- immediately attacks source of comment without trace of irony

"Rules for thee but not for mee, REEEEE......."

LoL.

So what is Pelosi doing that is illegal again?

I should start a poll, "What excuse will Trumptards use when Trump is impeached by the House?" Then list the obvious options.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/impeachment_bring_it_on_trump_can_put_the_dems_on_trial_in_the_senate.html

Read it to the end, and I would be curious if you think this is a wise or necessary path to go down.

[nutildah]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/impeachment_bring_it_on_trump_can_put_the_dems_on_trial_in_the_senate.html

Read it to the end, and I would be curious if you think this is a wise or necessary path to go down.

OK, I'm reading it, and I do appreciate your civil demeanor in asking. I'm no fan of the American Thinker but I'm reading it anyway.

Here's some parts I have problems with:

These forces have no doubt already figured out they can't beat the president at the ballot box.

They did beat Trump at the ballot box. Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes! They just couldn't get the votes where it mattered, which has been strange to me ever since Bush vs. Gore. But I understand it is what it is.

the president's enemies have moved on to an entirely ordinary and appropriate telephone call.

This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."

"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? We'll set you up with my personal lawyer and you can talk it over with him."

Everything will be relevant in the Senate trial, and everyone, no exceptions, should be subpoenaed and interrogated under oath.  That means Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Brennan, James Comey, Peter Strzok, and the entire gang behind the coup.

That includes Strzok, his girlfriend Lisa Page, Clapper, Brennan, Comey, and whatever Deep State apparatchiks lied to the FISA judge to enable a spying operation on the Trump campaign and transition team — a crime without precedent and one that massively outweighs anything that could credibly be alleged against President Trump.

None of this is going to happen. It does sound like porn for talk radio and news-addicted conservatives, however.

In their apparent decision to impeach President Trump, the Democrats have taken the final step in the cold civil war they have been waging for nearly three years against a constitutionally elected president and his 63 million+ voters.

Deployment of Trump's recent favorite dog whistle, nice.

The President's response should be withering, broad, and uncompromising. It should be one that turns his attackers into the hunted, a fate their lies and crimes have more than earned them.

Again, this is just fantasizing. It sounds juicy if this is what you wanted to hear, and why you visited the American Thinker. However, outside of a core bunch of supporters, Trump doesn't have the political or public capital to engage in this kind of thing.

My response to the article is, bring it on.

[Spendulus]

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/09/impeachment_bring_it_on_trump_can_put_the_dems_on_trial_in_the_senate.html

Read it to the end, and I would be curious if you think this is a wise or necessary path to go down.

.....My response to the article is, bring it on.

But is it a wise, or a NECESSARY, path to go down?

[BADecker]

There are a whole lot of Dems who are realizing that the Dem program is ultimately one of taking freedom away. Dem leaders are appealing to the selfish nature of a bunch of people who can't think well enough to get out there and work for a living. These useless people can't support the Dem leaders, but the others (the workers) will always find a way around supporting the welfare-system that the Dems are promoting. In other words, Dems are in failure mode, and will always be that way.

[Spendulus]

...

This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."

"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? ....

One other comment. Is Biden Trump's "political opponent?"

I think not. I think he would become that when he had been deemed the Democrat candidate for president.

[nutildah]

...

This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."

"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? ....

One other comment. Is Biden Trump's "political opponent?"

I think not. I think he would become that when he had been deemed the Democrat candidate for president.

He is the most likely to win the dem nomination, so yes. They certainly are sparring like its a done deal already. Trump is obviously more scared of Biden than any other candidate. He never even mentions them.

[Spendulus]

...

This is ridiculous. In no way was the phone call "entirely ordinary and appropriate."

"Congrats on your win, guy. BTW, can you please open investigations into my political opponents for me? ....

One other comment. Is Biden Trump's "political opponent?"

I think not. I think he would become that when he had been deemed the Democrat candidate for president.

He is the most likely to win the dem nomination, so yes. They certainly are sparring like its a done deal already. Trump is obviously more scared of Biden than any other candidate. He never even mentions them.

I see some rationale in what you are saying, but still I have trouble with that on several fronts.

Let me just ask this.

Consider the incredible assault on Kavanaugh by Democrats with the thinnest shreds of facts. Few Democrats objected to that.

And now POTUS requests politely some looking into Biden's past behavior and it's grounds for impeachment....

Sorry, your favored party doesn't have the reasoning ability to run this country.

[BADecker]

Impeachment is for disobeying the law of the government corporation in some ways. A President who investigates corporate government activities by other government people, is absolutely doing his government job.

If a President uses his private capacity to investigate other people privately, that's a different story. A President has as much right to personally investigate other people as anybody does. With the Internet, these days, there is so much info about people listed in the public, that personal investigation of anybody by anybody is being done all the time. If it is personal, it doesn't have anything to do with the government corporation, and is not impeachable.

In this case, Trump has the right and duty to investigate. Why? Because Biden was using his position in government to further his own personal, outside-of-government circumstances by using his government position and power to do it. Biden's son was simply an extension of his father, like your hand is an extension of your arm. This is not acceptable activity for a person in corporate government as Biden was.

Biden was mixing private and public in ways not allowed by his position in the government corporation. The thing that would have been an impeachable offense for Trump would have been if he had NOT investigated the whole Biden situation.

[nutildah]

Let me just ask this.

Consider the incredible assault on Kavanaugh by Democrats with the thinnest shreds of facts. Few Democrats objected to that.

That issue is neither here nor there. I stayed out of it entirely. But it did make for some great memes.

And now POTUS requests politely some looking into Biden's past behavior and it's grounds for impeachment....

Yes, because there are proper channels for that. Asking for a favor from one president to another isn't one of them. Kavanaugh wasn't anybody's political opponent as he wasn't running in an election against anybody.

Sorry, your favored party doesn't have the reasoning ability to run this country.

Its only my favored party this time around. I'm registered as a Libertarian and last election I voted for Gary Johnson. I'm not really that partisan. I just saw some bullshit being flung in Biden's general direction, looked into it, and discovered that it was designed to counter much weightier bullshit being flung at Trump.

Pretty sure Trump is out as president next time around. He will undoubtedly be replaced by a Democrat. Will it spell the end of America? Unlikely. It never has in the past.

[TECSHARE]

"MILITIA'S ACTIVATING ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!! WE ARE APPROACHING CIVIL WAR?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0edbVmIiZs8

I don't think the left understand how dangerous of a game they are playing here...

[BADecker]

"MILITIA'S ACTIVATING ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!! WE ARE APPROACHING CIVIL WAR?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0edbVmIiZs8

I don't think the left understand how dangerous of a game they are playing here...

"Militias all across the country, not just here in Arizona, but every single state are readying themselves and are prepared for what appears to be an AN ILLEGAL COUP TAKING OVER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!" [Because they don't realize that they can do it all through common law courts and jury nullification.]

...

"NOW DONALD TRUMP TWEETED LAST NIGHT JUST THAT!!!!"

"ILLEGAL
FORCEFUL
VIOLENT
SEIZURE"

"Your president, arguably the most powerful person in the world, is telling you straight to your face that a coup is occurring in Washington DC..."

"NANCY PELOSI IS TELLING YOU THAT YOUR VOTE DIDN'T COUNT!"

No, actually the Electoral College told us that. Except that anybody can take members of the Electoral College to court for harming them... trial by jury under common law. So they had better act according to the wishes of the people, and the position of law that is prescribed by the Constitution.]

...

Not much else to say.

Let the circus that is P&S carry on.

Good. Don't say anything else. You are kind of a circus of silliness.

[TECSHARE]

"MILITIA'S ACTIVATING ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY!! WE ARE APPROACHING CIVIL WAR?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0edbVmIiZs8

I don't think the left understand how dangerous of a game they are playing here...

Bring it on.

Wow dude. In this thread and a couple parallel to it, you've really managed to build quite a formidable mountain of bullshit and carve out a cave for yourself to live in the middle of it.

But I have to hand it to you: I never saw this coming. This video elevates your mountain to the Everest of Bullshit, which is quite a feat.

For god's sake get a grip man. Nobody's doing jack shit you wigged out ninny.

Let's review it blow-by-blowhard. 21 seconds in and your video is already a colossal colostomy bag:

"Militias all across the country, not just here in Arizona, but every single state are readying themselves and are prepared for what appears to be an AN ILLEGAL COUP TAKING OVER THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!"

 

Yeah fuckin' all the Hawaii militias are just up in fucking arms over this outrage  

"NOW DONALD TRUMP TWEETED LAST NIGHT JUST THAT!!!!"

Another sad colon burster. Jesus Christ man. This is the stuff that passes for news in your mind?

"ILLEGAL
FORCEFUL
VIOLENT
SEIZURE"

Of what? Of what was left of your sanity, thats what.

"Your president, arguably the most powerful person in the world, is telling you straight to your face that a coup is occurring in Washington DC..."

I'd be forced to conclude that your president is a bona fide moron. He hasn't even been impeached yet so WTF is he talking about?

"Durr this is why we have our guns, so we can defend the president at all costs..."

Jesus Fried Chicken.

"NANCY PELOSI IS TELLING YOU THAT YOUR VOTE DIDN'T COUNT!"

No, actually the Electoral College told us that.

I can't go any further with this.

It was entertaining via its comical absurdity but 3 minutes in and now I'm done.

You have a pathological inability to recognize:

• when you are wrong about something
• the depths of your own paranoia

I'm convinced its a mixture of neurobiological / environmental factors, deep seeded in events that happened early in life, so I don't blame you for it.

"Most 'Muricans are asleep at the wheel, but the hamster running around in my brain is WOKE."

Not much else to say.

Let the circus that is P&S carry on.

edit: of course the entire thing is a pitch for a company that sells gold infoproducts based on the ever-impending apocalypse, should have seen that coming  

https://ideology.today/amtv/russia-airbase-attacked-world-war-has-begun/
https://www.amtvmedia.com/war-with-iran-imminent-gold-to-skyrocket/

That is quite a rambling clusterfuck of you desperately trying to convince yourself. The video itself is largely irrelevant, the general message is not. We are in the middle of a coup attempt in the US, this is a fact. It is also a fact that if they succeed there will in fact be civil war. The people of the USA will not tolerate their democratically elected leader being removed illegally and their voice being squelched. The sleeping giant is now wide awake, and dipshits like you aren't putting it back to bed. Not all of us are pussies like you who fled the country and still pretend to be an American and cast judgement from afar.

[TECSHARE]

We are in the middle of a coup attempt in the US, this is a fact.

LOL, "fact."

https://i.imgflip.com/2zioxl.jpg

It is also a fact that if they succeed there will in fact be civil war.

It's also a fact that you're not doing jack shit.

Not all of us are pussies like you who fled the country and still pretend to be an American and cast judgement from afar.

 

Also accusing me of "rambling" is rich. Standards for theee but not for meee, reeee.......

Cute dead memes and projections in lieu of an argument. I presented logical reasoning based on current events. You presented an emotionally based mental breakdown. Just because you ignore reality from thousands of miles away doesn't make it cease to exist Nutilduhhh.

[TECSHARE]

I presented logical reasoning based on current events.

No, you did not. You blindly asserted something was a fact when it is the farthest thing from it.

The notion I asserted that you (and every other unstable conspiratard wingnut) aren't actually going to do jack shit should Trump be evicted from office is a fact, is equally so.

I think what's most hilarious about you is you are constantly accusing people of accusing people of doing something that their opponent is doing, all the while doing it yourself.

Cute memes ✓
Projections ✓
Emotionally based mental breakdown ✓
Ignoring reality ✓

Really, if you are going to make such claims as a method of attack, maybe you should stop engaging in the same behavior.

I have established in this thread as well as several others the attempt to deny the people of the US their democratically elected choice via mass media hysteria, open sedition in congress as well as the courts, and the general perversion of the legal process. I never said I personally was going to do anything. However if you believe that the US population will sit idly by while this coup takes place you are extremely ignorant.

Of course you are hiding thousands of miles away, so it is easy for you to pretend to be a tough guy and cry "bring it on" knowing full well you will be safe during this revolt. As someone who is constantly projecting, it is not surprising you lie to yourself so much that you believe your own projections. After all what is the point of projecting if you can't use it to hide your own unscrupulous acts? You just take it to the next level to help you hide from yourself.

[TECSHARE]

I have established in this thread as well as several others the attempt to deny the people of the US their democratically elected choice via mass media hysteria, open sedition in congress as well as the courts, and the general perversion of the legal process.

The only mass hysteria taking place is on your side. Crying about an impending civil war incessantly is pretty much the crux of this. Seriously, everything else pales in comparison if you can think rationally for one moment.

I never said I personally was going to do anything. However if you believe that the US population will sit idly by while this coup takes place you are extremely ignorant.

There is no coup.

Of course you are hiding thousands of miles away, so it is easy for you to pretend to be a tough guy and cry "bring it on" knowing full well you will be safe during this revolt.

Actually what I'm doing is lampooning the idea that there will be any revolt at all. Its an absurd idea that only serves as masturbation lubricant for your ilk.

As someone who is constantly projecting, it is not surprising you lie to yourself so much that you believe your own projections.

Funny -- I feel the exact same way about you.

After all what is the point of projecting if you can't use it to hide your own unscrupulous acts?

Such as?

Don't take it from me, take it from the biggest liberal milquetoast fence sitter to ever exist.

"Democrat Claims They're Planning How To Arrest Trump Officials, Says "No Joke""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d-BzjG_cCI

This concept we are heading toward civil war is neither new nor my invention and is increasingly a topic of debate no matter how much you plug your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Unscrupulous such as accusing me of everything you are guilty of, and then having the gall of additionally then accusing me of hypocrisy for pointing it out. No worries though, you are safe far far away in the Philippines so you have little to nothing to lose if this country breaks out in civil war, giving you the freedom to be so flippant about this potential.

[Spendulus]

I have established in this thread as well as several others the attempt to deny the people of the US their democratically elected choice via mass media hysteria, open sedition in congress as well as the courts, and the general perversion of the legal process.

The only mass hysteria taking place is on your side. Crying about an impending civil war incessantly is pretty much the crux of this. Seriously, everything else pales in comparison if you can think rationally for one moment.

I never said I personally was going to do anything. However if you believe that the US population will sit idly by while this coup takes place you are extremely ignorant.

There is no coup.

Of course you are hiding thousands of miles away, so it is easy for you to pretend to be a tough guy and cry "bring it on" knowing full well you will be safe during this revolt.

Actually what I'm doing is lampooning the idea that there will be any revolt at all. Its an absurd idea that only serves as masturbation lubricant for your ilk.

As someone who is constantly projecting, it is not surprising you lie to yourself so much that you believe your own projections.

Funny -- I feel the exact same way about you.

After all what is the point of projecting if you can't use it to hide your own unscrupulous acts?

Such as?

Don't take it from me, take it from the biggest liberal milquetoast fence sitter to ever exist.

"Democrat Claims They're Planning How To Arrest Trump Officials, Says "No Joke""

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9d-BzjG_cCI

This concept we are heading toward civil war is neither new nor my invention and is increasingly a topic of debate no matter how much you plug your ears and go "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Unscrupulous such as accusing me of everything you are guilty of, and then having the gall of additionally then accusing me of hypocrisy for pointing it out. No worries though, you are safe far far away in the Philippines so you have little to nothing to lose if this country breaks out in civil war, giving you the freedom to be so flippant about this potential.

These tactics existed  before Trump. Remember how the Democrats in Wisconsin persecuted Republicans?

[TECSHARE]

Unscrupulous such as accusing me of everything you are guilty of, and then having the gall of additionally then accusing me of hypocrisy for pointing it out. No worries though, you are safe far far away in the Philippines so you have little to nothing to lose if this country breaks out in civil war, giving you the freedom to be so flippant about this potential.

I just can't believe how disconnected from reality or far gone mentally you have to be to believe that not only is a coup underway but civil war is about to break out. I can be flippant all day long knowing that a civil war is not happening no matter how much you believe it will. That's what being grounded in reality affords me.

I think you must secretly love being wrong.

That would after all be the perspective of some one who is actually disconnected from reality and mentally ill. This isn't a fringe concept no matter how hard you struggle fruitlessly to marginalize me. You just have your head buried so deep in the sand that anyone who bothers to look around and talk honestly about it terrifies you, so you need to convince yourself they are crazy so you can displace your own cognitive dissonance onto others. After all, if you acknowledge this reality, you might have to change your belief system and the way you live, and who wants that right?

[Spendulus]

Unscrupulous such as accusing me of everything you are guilty of, and then having the gall of additionally then accusing me of hypocrisy for pointing it out. No worries though, you are safe far far away in the Philippines so you have little to nothing to lose if this country breaks out in civil war, giving you the freedom to be so flippant about this potential.

I just can't believe how disconnected from reality or far gone mentally you have to be to believe that not only is a coup underway but civil war is about to break out. I can be flippant all day long knowing that a civil war is not happening no matter how much you believe it will. That's what being grounded in reality affords me.

I think you must secretly love being wrong.

That would after all be the perspective of some one who is actually disconnected from reality and mentally ill. This isn't a fringe concept no matter how hard you struggle fruitlessly to marginalize me. You just have your head buried so deep in the sand that anyone who bothers to look around and talk honestly about it terrifies you, so you need to convince yourself they are crazy so you can displace your own cognitive dissonance onto others. After all, if you acknowledge this reality, you might have to change your belief system and the way you live, and who wants that right?

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

[TECSHARE]

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

Actually the coup happened a long time ago and was successful. Trump is leading the counter-coup before control is finalized, and the original factions are actively trying to stop him. Of course this is too deep for simpletons like Nutilduhh so I just simplified it for the sake of ease of communication. I wouldn't want his head to explode from realizing just exactly how blind he has been after all.

[TwitchySeal]

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

Actually the coup happened a long time ago and was successful. Trump is leading the counter-coup before control is finalized, and the original factions are actively trying to stop him. Of course this is too deep for simpletons like Nutilduhh so I just simplified it for the sake of ease of communication. I wouldn't want his head to explode from realizing just exactly how blind he has been after all.

Aren't coups usually pretty sudden, unconstitutional, and result in the leader of the coup immediately taking the place of the leader they overthrew?

That's not what's happening here.

I guess we could have our own American version of the coup if we want though.  It definitely makes an accusation sound more serious.

[TECSHARE]

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

Actually the coup happened a long time ago and was successful. Trump is leading the counter-coup before control is finalized, and the original factions are actively trying to stop him. Of course this is too deep for simpletons like Nutilduhh so I just simplified it for the sake of ease of communication. I wouldn't want his head to explode from realizing just exactly how blind he has been after all.

Aren't coups usually pretty sudden, unconstitutional, and result in the leader of the coup immediately taking the place of the leader they overthrew?

That's not what's happening here.

I guess we could have our own American version of the coup if we want though.  It definitely makes an accusation sound more serious.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Coups are also quiet and subversive, it is not a requirement they are fast and loud. Also we aren't just talking about individuals but factions fighting. Trump just happens to be the chosen figurehead. The public face of the opposition is largely expendable and interchangeable. What would you call an assassination of a sitting president if not a coup BTW?

[TwitchySeal]

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

Actually the coup happened a long time ago and was successful. Trump is leading the counter-coup before control is finalized, and the original factions are actively trying to stop him. Of course this is too deep for simpletons like Nutilduhh so I just simplified it for the sake of ease of communication. I wouldn't want his head to explode from realizing just exactly how blind he has been after all.

Aren't coups usually pretty sudden, unconstitutional, and result in the leader of the coup immediately taking the place of the leader they overthrew?

That's not what's happening here.

I guess we could have our own American version of the coup if we want though.  It definitely makes an accusation sound more serious.

You are making a lot of assumptions. Coups are also quiet and subversive, it is not a requirement they are fast and loud. Also we aren't just talking about individuals but factions fighting. Trump just happens to be the chosen figurehead. The public face of the opposition is largely expendable and interchangeable. What would you call an assassination of a sitting president if not a coup BTW?

Coup as in Coup D'etat, right?  The word Coup implies something sudden and decisive.  Coup de Grace, for example, means a final death blow.

Assassinating a president doesn't necessarily mean it's a coup.  Although a president could certainly be assassinated during a coup.

[Spendulus]

A lot of ways the term "civil war" can be interpreted.

Regardless, there certainly was an attempt at a coup, and it is ongoing.

Actually the coup happened a long time ago and was successful. Trump is leading the counter-coup before control is finalized, and the original factions are actively trying to stop him. Of course this is too deep for simpletons like Nutilduhh so I just simplified it for the sake of ease of communication. I wouldn't want his head to explode from realizing just exactly how blind he has been after all.

Aren't coups usually pretty sudden, unconstitutional, and result in the leader of the coup immediately taking the place of the leader they overthrew?

That's not what's happening here.

I guess we could have our own American version of the coup if we want though.  It definitely makes an accusation sound more serious.

I do think "attempted coup" is fair to describe the efforts to overthrown the Trump presidency by strongly pushing total fiction on the "Russian collusion." Granted, your mileage may vary. Others may want to use other phrases. And whether it's ongoing, or we have "failed coup #1" and are in the middle now of "stupid impeachment coup #2" is not an interesting debate.

The Pelosi Fish have jumped the shark. Nobody is interested in their wild, continual, made up nonsense. Except, perhaps in Washington DC or San Francisco.

[TwitchySeal]

The Pelosi Fish have jumped the shark. Nobody is interested in their wild, continual, made up nonsense. Except, perhaps in Washington DC or San Francisco.

This is simply not true.  I think Pelosi would probably be getting more shit than she is now if didn't move to impeach.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

[TECSHARE]

Coup as in Coup D'etat, right?  The word Coup implies something sudden and decisive.  Coup de Grace, for example, means a final death blow.

Assassinating a president doesn't necessarily mean it's a coup.  Although a president could certainly be assassinated during a coup.

Your personal interpretation is irrelevant. The actual definition of the word however is relevant.

Definition of coup d'état (noun):

": a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"


Definition of coup (verb):
": overturn, upset"

As you can see not only does the word coup not require violent and sudden overthrow, even by your interpretation an assassination of a sitting president fits quite firmly within it. The factions Trump is resisting now are linked to the JFK assassination, and that was absolutely a coup.

The Pelosi Fish have jumped the shark. Nobody is interested in their wild, continual, made up nonsense. Except, perhaps in Washington DC or San Francisco.

This is simply not true.  I think Pelosi would probably be getting more shit than she is now if didn't move to impeach.

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=3642

https://i.gyazo.com/df95e0e733cbb432515ec4012697bdb4.png

BREAKING NEWS: Democrats want impeachment. In other news, water is wet.


More related:

"Trump Warns Of Civil War If Impeached Causing OUTRAGE, But He Isn't Wrong And The Media Knows It"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si-CVXCc1ok

[TwitchySeal]

Your personal interpretation is irrelevant. The actual definition of the word however is relevant.

Definition of coup d'état (noun):

": a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics especially : the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group"

The first definition just means that when people say "coup", they usually mean "coup d'etat.

The second one is the definition you're looking for. (the actual definition)



The last one is what they mean when they say coup in Scotland (pronounced coop, and spelled a bunch of different ways).  They use it when something falls down or gets knocked over.  (also not something that happens slowly)



Dear me, Mr Walkinshaw, but ye hae gotten an unco cowp. I hope nae banes are broken?

https://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/coup_n1

[BADecker]

Emergency alert - U.S. Marines reserve forces activated to respond to "threats in the Homeland."

We are learning today from multiple sources, both inside and outside the military, that a "hot coup" attempt has been mobilized against President Trump.

Three days ago, a directive order was issued by Brigadier General Daniel L. Shipley. The directive cites an "emergency within the United States" which "will come with little warning" and involves "threats in the Homeland."

The order coincides with other intel we're receiving about the illegal coup attempt against Trump going "hot." Mass hysteria in the media and a total censorship crackdown among the tech giants further underscores a coordinated, criminal coup taking place in America right now.

The lawless Dems and their deep state traitors are now trying to arrest or execute President Trump before they are all exposed as criminal traitors (in upcoming document releases from AG Barr and the IG report).

See the full details here.

----------

Also today: There are no real whistleblowers [against Trump and his people]. It's all staged. The entire news media is gaslighting the nation with fake news. Every element of this coup is completely fabricated. [with the idea that the fabrication will cause the coup]

See the full report here.

----------

Taxpayer-funded National Public Radio just proved it is now part of the deep state’s ongoing coup attempt against President Trump.

----------

Where are the indictments of those implicated in the coup attempt against Trump?

[TECSHARE]

usually

Usually /= always. Like I said, your personal interpretation is irrelevant.

[TwitchySeal]

The first definition just means that when people say "coup", they usually mean "coup d'etat.

Usually /= always.

Correct!  Usually and always are not the same.

[TECSHARE]

[BADecker]

^^^ Lot's of people get face-jobs that fail.     

[TECSHARE]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

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.  

Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened?

[Spendulus]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

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.  

Oh is it clear? Because to me it is clear they are pushing removal and resistance first then manufacturing evidence to support these actions later. This is all about butthurt over losing in 2016. The left are tyrants that cant tolerate a peaceful handover of power. They must be in charge at all times, and if they can't be they will stomp their feet, scream, and burn it all down. Why would anyone cooperate with this? Obstruction of what cupcake? You mean like obstruction of the Russia investigation that also never happened?

I do recall a lot of "Obstruction" words being batted around back in the Days of Mueller. But it all seemed to fade away.

But I do think that Twitch has a point, that Trump abused his power to influence the election. Just remember the Repub debates. Trump against 16 or 17. Next it was just Trump. You know that was unfair. His superior abilities against their inferior abilities.

And then Trump abused his power by beating Hitlery. The proof is that he won, see?

[TECSHARE]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

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. 

I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet.

Do it. Please, just do it.

Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there...
However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related

Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done.

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

[Spendulus]

Has anyone figured out what the charges for impeachment might be? For a long time it was supposed to be Russia Collusion, but I heard that was gone. Then I heard it was going to be Tit-For-Tat, but that's been not mentioned for some time now.

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. 

I do admit it would be very interesting to see a United States President impeached for a tweet.

Do it. Please, just do it.

Doesn't really matter the medium of the crime. Plenty of people have been convicted for posts online historically. Nothing new there...
However we got him on about 50+ charges non-internet related

Gonna be good once he's removed from office and then criminally liable for everything he's done.

And that's "good." Interesting point of view.

I guess then the POTUS Ivanka will just take care of that annoyance.

Don't you think at some point people will tire of the hate?

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism.

It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route.

[BADecker]

Yep, just before they are loaded on the rail cars.

I was reviewing yesterday the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Communists took over in 1917 Russia. What started as enthusiasm and idealism, and the freshness of a new political system in just a few years devolved into statis and totalitarianism.

It seems the American left, once a party of serious principles, has gone a similar route.

The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

If you are serious about cleaning up America, watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0GFK_5dQFk.

[Spendulus]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

[BADecker]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

[Spendulus]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

They look at you a bit funny when you started talking like that?

[TECSHARE]

doesn't typically have to provide information relating to subpoenas if they are to deem it executive privilege. (Which is obviously then tested in court, it is currently being tested)

The Supreme Court has already ruled in the past on this and executive privilege, what they can withhold, is narrowly limited to certain things in the case of impeachment (at least I think's that what it is. could be for oversight in general). Their main reasoning for withholding things seemed to do a side step around that and instead said the entire inquiry etc was invalid and talked about due process. And again. They turned over documents to citizens but not the same sort of stuff to congress.

If you're referring to the case about the Mueler report, that's different. That's about whether private Grand Jury testimony can be made available for impeachment. There's also previous case law for that and it was in favor of congress getting it for impeachment. The impeachment trial is considered a judiciary proceeding. Since the investigation and articles of impeachment are required for the trial, all of what the congress does also falls into that. Some Rule 6e about grand jury testimony has an exception for judicial proceedings. So that case will only fail if the dems screw up in some way, or the appeals court etc somehow decides to completely overturn previous case law. If they don't, I doubt the supreme court will hear the case. If they do, then the supreme court probably would.

Yeah those pesky step arounds. You mean like the "step around" where Pelosi refused to hold a vote on starting an impeachment inquiry until just recently, actually making all the "subpoenas" issued before this date legally invalid? Funny how the letter of the law is only important when the ends justify the means.

[BADecker]

....
The only reason is that the people are so ignorant, that they don't know to use common law courts of record.

You ever been in a court?

Yep.     

They look at you a bit funny when you started talking like that?

The whole idea of the formation of the USA was to get around having a monarch. But the people seem to want a monarch, like a King George. So, they absolutely are going to look funny at any person who wants freedom, and who uses the freedom that is built right into governmental documents.

How about you?, since you are the one asking. Would you be free? Or do you want to worship government like it is a king?

[Spendulus]

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.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

[BADecker]

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.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

But everybody knows he was ordered to by LBJ - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/144737-2013-11-06-roger-stone-o-g-politiko-nixon-insider-lbj-killed-jfk.htm - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/080738-2010-12-23-robert-morrow-my-files-on-the-lbj-cia-assassination-of.htm - https://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/094435-2011-08-08-first-lady-jackie-kennedy-accuses-lbj-of-orchestrating-jfks-assassination.htm.

[TECSHARE]

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.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so.

[Spendulus]

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.

Quote
I got it!!!!

Trump was the second gunman on the Grassy Knoll!

Trump killed JFK!

Why do you even participate in those censorious threads when a free version is available? All you do is enable that kind of behavior by doing so.

So...you mean here in the free version, it is not a Twitchy sort of Truth?

[BADecker]

Impeach all of government.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Emolument Clause:

Also known as the Title of Nobility Clause, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution prohibits any person holding a government office from accepting any present, emolument, office, or title from any "King, Prince, or foreign State," without congressional consent. This clause is meant to prevent external influence and corruption of American officers by foreign States. A similar provision was included in the Articles of Confederation, applicable to both federal and state officers. The language of the modern clause, however, suggests that only federal government officials are prohibited from accepting any emoluments.

That the phrase "Offices of Profit or Trust under the United States" applies to all appointed officials is undisputed, however there is much debate as to whether it extends to elected officials.

History does not provide a clear answer: When he served as Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton produced a list of persons holding such offices at the request of the Senate; the list did not include any elected positions. Further, during their presidencies, while George Washington did not seek or obtain congressional consent for foreign gifts, Andrew Jackson did.

The Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, on the other hand, enumerates several elected positions in its definition of "employees" who may not accept any gift of more than minimal value without congressional approval. Such "employees" include the President and the Vice President, a Member of Congress, and the spouses and dependents of the same.

...

[Spendulus]

WASHINGTON, D.C.—House Democrats today announced a new plan to ensure Trump wins the White House again in 2020.

"We hereby unveil these articles of impeachment, which clearly lay out the undeniable fact that we will not win the White House back next year," said Rep. Jerry Nadler. "We have found Trump guilty of absolutely nothing, but we already started this whole process and it would look bad to back out now, so here we are."

"I declare here and now that Trump will be in the White House for at least another four years."

Some questioned if this was the best strategy, but Democrats pointed out that with four more years of Trump, they will be able to generate far more outrage than if they took back the White House. "It's a lot more fun to be extremists and scream at the sky for years and years instead of proposing policies that most Americans support and actually win elections."

https://babylonbee.com/news/house-dems-announce-trump-will-win-2020-election