D
deleted941485
I guess I view politicians the way most others do. They’re all pretty dirty even if they fight for your cause. You stick them in a mud pit called DC and watch them fight it out.
Impeachment
- Thread starter Mikkel
- Start date
- Status
I guess I view politicians the way most others do. They’re all pretty dirty even if they fight for your cause. You stick them in a mud pit called DC and watch them fight it out.
Banning immigrants????
Yeah.....K.
On a side note...
"Former vice president Joe Biden is currently favored by 50 percent of registered voters while 46 percent support Trump. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has 49 percent support to Trump’s 46 percent, also virtually even given the poll’s four-point margin of sampling error among registered voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) receives 49 percent to Trump’s 47 percent, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) stands at 48 percent to Trump’s 47 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is tied with Trump at 48 percent. Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg is at 45 percent to Trump’s 48 percent. "
"The close matchups between Trump and Democrats among registered voters represent a contrast with an October Post-ABC poll in which Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg all held double-digit advantages over the incumbent. "
"The shift coincides with a rise in Trump’s approval rating from 38 percent to 44 percent among the public overall, with 51 percent currently disapproving. Opinion is even more closely divided among registered voters, with 47 percent approving of Trump and 50 percent disapproving, matching the best margin of his presidency. "
"Trump’s improved standing in the latest survey is due in part to political independents. Trump receives between 47 percent and 52 percent support among voters in this group depending on his Democratic opponent, an improvement from October, when he got between 39 percent and 42 percent support. "
Funny how with all the heinous, impeachable offenses that Trump has committed, looks like the tide of support is moving in the opposite direction than you would expect.
Weird.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
I feel like we're spinning our wheels here. Disliking a 70 yr old candidate for egregious reasons related to lifelong character/personality dysfunction in addition to policy disagreements, and then saying there is nothing plausible that is going to change your mind - because serious, irredeemable precedent has been set - is logically consistent.
OTOH, saying that there is nothing that would change your mind change your mind from a positive to negative opinion is a cult mentality. Nobody is perfect and presidents on both sides are capable of making big mistakes.Trump being a wildly unethical person is not some kind of secret. There are hundreds of possible scandals related to politics and finance which he or any other politician are capable of. He could hypothetically get into a war or through incompetence allow a terrorist attack. The list is endless, and an informed populace should turn on a dime if there is a Nixon or end-of-GWB 2nd term situation.
But to answer your question, I posted that because blade thought it was some profound point that the senate was going to acquit and that the election may be close. Neither of those two things has anything to do with the facts, because people who say that nothing would make them change from a positive to a negative opinion about someone don't care about facts.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
Even if Trump is behind but Close in polling he is actually way ahead in the electoral college. The last three republican wins for president lost the popular vote and we’re probably behind in polling. Trump was being crushed in polls in 2016 but won. Nobody thought he would win. His polling is ten times better than 2016. That’s why Democrats are so desperate. They are truly worried about these poll numbers. Michael Moore predicts a Trump win. The Democrats do not have a candidate. They are either extreme or senile.Banning immigrants????
Yeah.....K.
On a side note...
"Former vice president Joe Biden is currently favored by 50 percent of registered voters while 46 percent support Trump. Former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has 49 percent support to Trump’s 46 percent, also virtually even given the poll’s four-point margin of sampling error among registered voters. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) receives 49 percent to Trump’s 47 percent, while Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) stands at 48 percent to Trump’s 47 percent. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is tied with Trump at 48 percent. Former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg is at 45 percent to Trump’s 48 percent. "
"The close matchups between Trump and Democrats among registered voters represent a contrast with an October Post-ABC poll in which Biden, Sanders, Warren and Buttigieg all held double-digit advantages over the incumbent. "
"The shift coincides with a rise in Trump’s approval rating from 38 percent to 44 percent among the public overall, with 51 percent currently disapproving. Opinion is even more closely divided among registered voters, with 47 percent approving of Trump and 50 percent disapproving, matching the best margin of his presidency. "
"Trump’s improved standing in the latest survey is due in part to political independents. Trump receives between 47 percent and 52 percent support among voters in this group depending on his Democratic opponent, an improvement from October, when he got between 39 percent and 42 percent support. "
Funny how with all the heinous, impeachable offenses that Trump has committed, looks like the tide of support is moving in the opposite direction than you would expect.
Weird.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
Facts? Whose version of the FACTS? Schiff? Pelosi? The facts only matter against Republicans because they certainly don't matter when a Democrat holds the Vice Presidency (Biden) or the Presidency (Clinton).
The difference is most GOP members recognize partisanship when they see it on BOTH sides of the aisle. Only liberal hacks can't see the hypocrisy on their side.
The way many of us see the "facts" is that a dirty Joe Biden was profiting from his position as Vice President using aid money intended for Ukraine. Personal profit for his son Biden to earn millions because his last name was Biden and his daddy controlled the aid to Ukraine.
Have you ever read up on Hunter Biden? Again, the facts don't matter because only the Orange man plays dirty in the swamp.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
One last point is that WE all know the Orange man plays dirty. He was wrong in that phone call. Trump reacted to the video circulating of Biden bragging about forcing Ukraine to fire their prosecutor so BURISMA wouldn't be investigated. This directly profited Hunter Biden and Burisma. That's why Burisma hired Hunter Biden at a million dollars per year.
The entire swamp is dirty. The Democrats are just better at playing in the swamp and getting away with it.
The entire swamp is dirty. The Democrats are just better at playing in the swamp and getting away with it.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor
In this clip from a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden seems to brag about threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the firing of a prosecutor he did not like. In September 2019, House Democrats...
I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Whose? In addition to the dozen other witnesses including a million dollar donor to trump who says there was a quid pro quo, how bout the account according to Bolton? Bolton book says Trump tied Ukraine military aid to Biden probe
FLASHBACK, 2018: Joe Biden Brags At CFR Meeting About Withholding Aid To Ukraine To Force Firing Of Prosecutor
In this clip from a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Vice President Joe Biden seems to brag about threatening to withhold military aid to Ukraine as a pressure tactic to force the firing of a prosecutor he did not like. In September 2019, House Democrats...www.realclearpolitics.com
I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Again, feel free to keep posting this misleading nonsense and then pretend you care about facts, cause it's pretty easy to fact check and learn the actual truth. Everyone wanted the corrupt prosecutor Shokin gone and it was the official policy position of the US.
---------
But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.
In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.
Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”
In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”
In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.
“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.
Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the “Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go” was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society
Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine - FactCheck.org
President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold "billions of dollars to Ukraine" unless it removed the prosecutor general who "was prosecuting" Biden's son, Hunter.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,887
- Reaction score
- 20,937
If Trump is so concerned about ethics, maybe he should start with his own house before going after Hunter Biden. Never mind, I’m sure Jared’s deals are “perfect”.
www.google.com
Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem - to the tune of $90m | Vicky Ward
Since Kushner entered the White House, a firm he founded has received over $90m in foreign funds. The public has a right to know the sources
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
If Trump is so concerned about ethics, maybe he should start with his own house before going after Hunter Biden. Never mind, I’m sure Jared’s deals are “perfect”.
Jared Kushner may have an ethics problem - to the tune of $90m | Vicky Ward
Since Kushner entered the White House, a firm he founded has received over $90m in foreign funds. The public has a right to know the sources
Far from it. Like I have posted previously the SWAMP is dirty. That includes Trump et al. We all know they play politics to make money. Only a few are stupid enough to get caught. Joe Biden played the game well.
Anyone who thinks Burisma hired Hunter Biden for his oil/natural gas experience is delusional. The FACT is the fired prosecutor was going to investigate Burisma. By forcing his departure at that time Joe secured Hunter's position with Burisma. Vector would have you believe this is all coincidence. Bullcrap. Joe knew Hunter was going to make $$$ off of his Ukraine dealings.
So, what's my point? To impeach and remove a sitting President you need a lot more evidence then presented by Schiff and company. Playing dirty like Joe and Hunter simply isn't enough these days; you need solid evidence of corruption or bribery to make the charges stick.
Trump was planning on doing something highly unethical. But, it NEVER actually happened. There was no crime here so Pelosi stuck with "abuse of power" as the main charge.
The appropriate action by Pelosi was "censure" not impeachment. AOC and the liberal left hate Trump and suffer from TDS so Pelosi went along with the impeachment.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
For those with an open mind it is hard to decide who is worse Hunter Biden or Donald Trump as a human being:
www.cnbc.com
Hunter Biden agrees to pay child support to Arkansas woman, avoids contempt hearing
President Donald Trump was impeached late last year after disclosures that he had asked Ukraine's new president to announce investigations of the former Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2017
- Messages
- 3,748
- Reaction score
- 4,304
For those with an open mind it is hard to decide who is worse Hunter Biden or Donald Trump as a human being:
Hunter Biden agrees to pay child support to Arkansas woman, avoids contempt hearing
President Donald Trump was impeached late last year after disclosures that he had asked Ukraine's new president to announce investigations of the former Vice President Joe Biden and Hunter Biden.
One holds the highest elected office on earth. One is a nobody.
One the whole world looks to, the other 99% of the world don’t know who he is.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Lol, what’s with the broken propaganda clock, blade?
You (for the umpteenth time): Hunter didn't have gas experience, shouldn't have worked for them for X, Y, Z reason!
Me: Hunter worked in finance and has sat on the Amtrak board before. Regardless, all major corporate boards including all Fortune 500 companies have executives from totally unrelated industries that sit on them. Boards are about finance and governance, not necessarily particular expertise in a field. Additionally, the prosecutor who did investigate Burisma found no wrongdoing by Biden.
You (for the umpteenth time): Biden wanted the Ukrainian prosecutor fired!
Me: Shokin was a corrupt Poroshenko holdover and the entire US government, the EU, and the IMF wanted him gone because he wasn't fighting corruption
You (for the umpteenth time): No crime happened!
Me: Holding up the aid was a crime as it violated the ICA. Further, trump learned of the whistleblower complaint in August, on Sept 9 Congress started an investigation, and trump only released the aid on Sept 11 after the jig was up. He got caught in the middle of the scheme. Plain and simple. An attempted crime is still a crime.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
Amtrak board??? That’s how these corrupt mother ****ers work. Politicians do favors for corporations next thing you know they and their family members are sitting on boards collecting huge paychecks for doing nothing. Kind of like your hospital ceo collecting millions off your back while at the same time he or she is doing favors for the hospital board. It’s total corruption no matter what side of the fence you’re on.
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 63,099
- Reaction score
- 154,727
ok I have a serious question. are you taking the Bolton stuff seriously and if so why?
Bolton is notorious for having absurdly extreme foreign policy views. But the issue here is Bolton desperately wanted the National Security job and got it. Then he was sacked upon having differences with Trump. What stops him from exaggerating situations and running a smear campaign against his former boss? He's a disgruntled employee who got fired from a job he really wanted.
And as such, why are people taking his testimony with any importance given the bias? How is what he says any different from Sondland or Yovanovitch testimonies?
Bolton is notorious for having absurdly extreme foreign policy views. But the issue here is Bolton desperately wanted the National Security job and got it. Then he was sacked upon having differences with Trump. What stops him from exaggerating situations and running a smear campaign against his former boss? He's a disgruntled employee who got fired from a job he really wanted.
And as such, why are people taking his testimony with any importance given the bias? How is what he says any different from Sondland or Yovanovitch testimonies?
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
"One of the board members of coca cola is an exec from the video game company Activision Blizzard. Another is from Expedia, another is from Aaron's and Delta. Exxon's board has ppl from Wellpoint, Xerox, and Merck.."
You wanna go write all of them strongly worded letters?
In isolation, his credibility might be questionable. He's believable because his account is confirmed by Vindman, Taylor, Hill, Sondland, Yovanovitch, Parnas, and a half dozen others. Additionally, Bolton told Vindman and Hill to go speak with NSC attorney Eisenberg so Bolton's contemporaneous story is easily confirmable.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
A
And hunter Biden is a crack head who drilled his brother’s wife then knocked up some stripper. How does he end up an Amtrak board member without connections?
D
deleted162650
Dude’s snortin’ rails and railin’ chicks. Seems like a perfect fit for a train company no??
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Excellent question. Wowsers, it's almost as if rich and/or powerful people and their kids can legally get access to education and jobs that the rest of us can't....totally not fair, but unfortunately for the rest of us a college or a corporation can legally accept anyone they want into their respective organizations.
But, to get back to the person actually on trial instead of this distraction, if there was foreign corruption going on then the investigation should've originated within the FBI and the DoJ since we all know Barr is more than capable of starting some sham of an investigation. trump thought he was bulletproof and with his arrogance made an illegal blunder, which like Nixon ended up getting exposed.
Let's not pretend though that trump actually cared about corruption. The Bidens had been dealing with Ukraine since what, 2014? Explain this timeline:
2017 - trump doesn’t care about Ukrainian corruption
2018 - trump doesn’t care about Ukrainian corruption
Jan 2019 - trump doesn’t care about Ukrainian corruption
Feb 2019 - trump doesn’t care about Ukrainian corruption
Mar 2019 - trump doesn’t care about Ukrainian corruption
Apr 2019 - Biden announces presidential run
May 2019 - Giuliani begins pressure campaign on Zelensky to start investigating Burisma and the Bidens
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
Let's get back to the circus at hand:
Let's assume the US Senate votes 51-49 to have John Bolton as witness. Will Trump invoke executive privilege to prevent Bolton's testimony? Before Vector posts"yes" think about the process. The impeachment trial will be put on hold for 6 months while the lower courts then SCOTUS rules on this so called privilege. Trump won't be "cleared" of high crimes until the summer at the earliest.
But, if he allows Bolton to testify the circus ends in 2-3 weeks at the latest. Worst case scenario the Senate loses 2 Republicans to the Dems on the final vote for removal. That still falls way short of required 2/3. So, the best strategy is to let Bolton testify while also demanding testimony from Hunter Biden.
The circus can then continue but only briefly.
Let's assume the US Senate votes 51-49 to have John Bolton as witness. Will Trump invoke executive privilege to prevent Bolton's testimony? Before Vector posts"yes" think about the process. The impeachment trial will be put on hold for 6 months while the lower courts then SCOTUS rules on this so called privilege. Trump won't be "cleared" of high crimes until the summer at the earliest.
But, if he allows Bolton to testify the circus ends in 2-3 weeks at the latest. Worst case scenario the Senate loses 2 Republicans to the Dems on the final vote for removal. That still falls way short of required 2/3. So, the best strategy is to let Bolton testify while also demanding testimony from Hunter Biden.
The circus can then continue but only briefly.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
Report: Pennsylvania’s Sen. Pat Toomey floated deal for each side to summon an impeachment witness
www.mcall.com
By LAURA OLSON
Report: Pennsylvania’s Sen. Pat Toomey floated deal for each side to summon an impeachment witness
U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey reportedly has discussed a potential agreement on calling a pair of witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, including former national security adviser John Bolton.
By LAURA OLSON
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
I hope none of you are so naive as to think Hunter was collecting a salary for any legitimate job he was doing at Burisma (et al). Let me spell it out for you. Hunter's role was to be the conduit for lots of foreign money that was being paid to buy US State Secrets and legislation. $ flowed Foreign power players > Burisma > Hunter (takes his small cut) > Joe Biden (takes his cut). 5 Biden family members implicated in similar schemes in several countries. Joe Biden is just one of the many, many crooked scumbag politicians that have been selling out our country. Yours and mine. Just think of the magnitude of it all. This isn't about some snotty nosed rich kid getting into Princeton because of legacy or no talent, crackhead Hunter getting a job because his last name is Biden. Get a clue! These politicians have been dangerously and brazenly putting our national interests and safety at risk, and they've been doing it all with OUR own money! Moving our taxpayer money to some NGO/Foundation that's simply there to launder it and send it elsewhere. Why do you think nothing ever gets solved, regardless of how much money you and I spend on it? Because the intention is NOT to solve the problem, just use the problem as a reason to collect more money! There are politicians just as guilty as the Biden's who are fighting with all they have to remove Trump from office/damage him for the 2020 elections because he is coming for them and their families next. Those of you who still can't see what's right in front of your eyes need to wake the hell up!
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
---
Mitt makes his move
Romney “made a strong pitch” for witnesses during a closed-door lunch of Senate Republicans on Monday, according to Republicans familiar with the meeting. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged his colleagues to wait until after Trump’s defense team finishes its presentation and senators go through a lengthy question-and-answer session to make a decision on what’s become the biggest issue of the trial.
But Romney is already making his move. And though he serves on the Republican whip team, Romney is now effectively working against party leaders and arguing to colleagues that the proper way to test each side’s contention is to hear from people directly involved in the Ukraine saga.
“It has been pointed out so far by both the House managers as well the defense that there has not been evidence of a direct nature of what the president may have said or what his motives were or what he did,” Romney said on Monday evening. “The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant. And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”
www.politico.com
---
Crazy how reasonable these people become when they don't have to worry about trump tweeting against them and drumming up a primary challenger
Mitt makes his move
Romney “made a strong pitch” for witnesses during a closed-door lunch of Senate Republicans on Monday, according to Republicans familiar with the meeting. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) urged his colleagues to wait until after Trump’s defense team finishes its presentation and senators go through a lengthy question-and-answer session to make a decision on what’s become the biggest issue of the trial.
But Romney is already making his move. And though he serves on the Republican whip team, Romney is now effectively working against party leaders and arguing to colleagues that the proper way to test each side’s contention is to hear from people directly involved in the Ukraine saga.
“It has been pointed out so far by both the House managers as well the defense that there has not been evidence of a direct nature of what the president may have said or what his motives were or what he did,” Romney said on Monday evening. “The article in the New York Times I think made it pretty clear that [Bolton] has some information that may be relevant. And I’d like to hear relevant information before I made a final decision.”
Mitt makes his move
The occasional Trump critic is in the middle of an internal GOP fight over the impeachment trial.
www.politico.com
Crazy how reasonable these people become when they don't have to worry about trump tweeting against them and drumming up a primary challenger
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
New battleground state poll:
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
New battleground state poll:
[/
it’s funny how similar that poll is to this
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
John Kelly: ‘I believe John Bolton’
Trump’s former chief of staff talks up Bolton as an “honest guy” after the former national security adviser upends the impeachment trial.
...
“Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton.
Bolton’s alleged revelations regarding the Ukraine scandal have reignited a debate within the Senate over whether to subpoena him for testimony, with Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) pushing for Bolton to appear as a witness. Kelly said Monday that he also favors calling additional witnesses in Trump’s trial.
“I mean, half of Americans think this process is purely political and shouldn’t be happening, but since it is happening, the majority of Americans would like to hear the whole story,” Kelly said.
“So, I think if there are people that could contribute to this, either innocence or guilt ... I think they should be heard,” he said, adding: “I think some of the conversations seem to me to be very inappropriate, but I wasn’t there. But there are people that were there that ought to be heard from.”
...
Trump’s former chief of staff talks up Bolton as an “honest guy” after the former national security adviser upends the impeachment trial.
...
“Every single time I was with him ... he always gave the president the unvarnished truth,” Kelly said of Bolton.
Bolton’s alleged revelations regarding the Ukraine scandal have reignited a debate within the Senate over whether to subpoena him for testimony, with Democratic lawmakers and Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) pushing for Bolton to appear as a witness. Kelly said Monday that he also favors calling additional witnesses in Trump’s trial.
“I mean, half of Americans think this process is purely political and shouldn’t be happening, but since it is happening, the majority of Americans would like to hear the whole story,” Kelly said.
“So, I think if there are people that could contribute to this, either innocence or guilt ... I think they should be heard,” he said, adding: “I think some of the conversations seem to me to be very inappropriate, but I wasn’t there. But there are people that were there that ought to be heard from.”
...
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
It’s quite obvious Trump was thinking about pressuring Zelensky for an investigation. But, I want to emphasize TRUMP changes his mind every 10 minutes. Just because he told Bolton one thing doesn’t mean Trump didn’t change his mind literally 1 hour later. That’s how Trump rolls. I bet after Bolton called it a Drug Deal Trump was having second thoughts. He never followed through with the plan and even without the whistle blower Trump May never have pressured Zelensky. The way I see this is that Trump was Trump and ran his mouth off to Bolton who told him “no” in no uncertain terms.
There is no crime here. Trump never followed through with it. No pressure. No Quid Pro Quo. The aid was released.
Now, Vector would have you believe Trump was smart enough and cunning enough to actually plan this out. Not a chance. We all know Trump is an idiot. Bolton and Kelly knew it. Mulvaney knows it too.
There was no master plan here. The phone call was inappropriate but the entire impeachment is without merit or an actual crime.
Let the voters decide whether they want the Orange idiot or the communist as President in 2020. As for me, I’ll vote for the Orange man or Donald Duck before I vote for Sanders/Warren.
There is no crime here. Trump never followed through with it. No pressure. No Quid Pro Quo. The aid was released.
Now, Vector would have you believe Trump was smart enough and cunning enough to actually plan this out. Not a chance. We all know Trump is an idiot. Bolton and Kelly knew it. Mulvaney knows it too.
There was no master plan here. The phone call was inappropriate but the entire impeachment is without merit or an actual crime.
Let the voters decide whether they want the Orange idiot or the communist as President in 2020. As for me, I’ll vote for the Orange man or Donald Duck before I vote for Sanders/Warren.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
That’s quite the creative fantasy story you wrote there about trump changing his mind, except unfortunately it has nothing to do with the rough transcript or sequence of events that actually transpired. And then you followed it with the lamest crock of BS excuse that the President of the United States of America is apparently too dumb to pull off a what was ultimately a simple crime. Like, how are you not horrifically embarrassed even writing the nonsense that you do?
Again, you can say over and over that there was no crime and no quid pro quo and whatever other propaganda makes you feel better, and again I’ll reply
“
You (for the umpteenth time): No crime happened!
Me: Holding up the aid was a crime as it violated the ICA. Further, trump learned of the whistleblower complaint in August, on Sept 9 Congress started an investigation, and trump only released the aid on Sept 11 after the jig was up. He got caught in the middle of the scheme. Plain and simple. An attempted crime is still a crime.
“
Maybe we’d be in a different spot (censure?) if there was any contrition or admission of wrong doing by trump or his administration, but let’s not forget that as of now trump is still saying that he literally did nothing wrong. Anyone who is that deluded and/or corrupt is going to keep on committing crimes. After all, it is no coincidence that he extorted Zelensky almost exactly when he claimed “exoneration” by the Mueller report.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Blade keeps harping about “let the voters decide” but consider what kind of future precedent this current situation sets. If trump gets off scot free, we will have established that a two term president can do literally anything he wants, legal or illegal (as long as one branch of congress are his lackeys) in the last 18 months to 2 yrs of his second term. trump is saying right now to congress that you can subpoena me all you want and I can just blanket refuse on behalf of the entire executive branch without actually having to provide a legal justification or invoke execute privilege. Even putting aside for a sec that this kind of behavior is unprecedented, some might say “ok, well just take the issue to court.” What good does that actually do if a president is committing crimes (e.g. let me build Trump Tower “insert foreign city” and the US will do “insert favor”) and is going to be out of office in 18 months, but it takes the court case 2.5 yrs to get decided? This whole spectacle will have essentially established that a president gets to be a king as long as he can run out the clock on the courts, and the irony is not going be lost on anyone the next time there’s a corrupt democrat in the WH who invokes trumps article II interpretation.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
1. Trump did it so witnesses are not necessary
2. Future Presidents will show more restraint or risk impeachment like Trump
3. Biden was corrupt but the phone call was inappropriate
The point is that the phone call doesn't rise to the level of being removed from office. Senator Feinstein knows that is the case as well.
2. Future Presidents will show more restraint or risk impeachment like Trump
3. Biden was corrupt but the phone call was inappropriate
The point is that the phone call doesn't rise to the level of being removed from office. Senator Feinstein knows that is the case as well.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
1. Well I’m glad you’re saying he did it but let’s see who else is. Trump? No. Trump’s lawyers? No. Moscow Mitch? No. Lindsey? Nope. The rest of the GOP senate? Nope. The GOP house? Nope. Now if trump and the gop want to start accepting responsibility for trumps impeachable offenses and let the truth breathe free by allowing witnesses, then we can talk.
2. LOL, I doubt you even believed that as you were writing it. Has the rate of impeachment increased or decreased in the last 250 years? Have US presidents over the last 50 years become more or less moral (Nixon, Clinton, Trump)? Have US presidents in the last 20 years exercised more or less presidential authority or asserted more or less power for their branch (Patriot act, AUMF, number of executive orders, trumps current stonewalling)? I’m just going to assume you were being hopelessly naive instead of disingenuous by claiming that we shouldn’t be scared of future presidents cause magically they’ll somehow show more restraint if trump gets off scot free.
3. Joe Biden is corrupt? That’s a cool opinion and all but too bad all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor’s firing says otherwise.
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,501
- Reaction score
- 8,784
That he committed perjury, a felony.
Paid a fine and lost his law license
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
How severe trump’s actions are is a matter of opinion. No different than Clinton. The funny thing is that before the 2016 election the Democratic Party and mainstream media were crying and wining how if Clinton won Trump wouldn’t respect the outcome. How ironic that the Democratic Party is now for the last three years doing exactly what they were crying about. But I hate ALL politicians. I love that Trump coined the term Crooked Hillary, Sleepy Joe,Pocahontas and the do nothing Democrats. They are forever branded with these labels and that’s how they will be remembered!
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
No, trump violating the ICA is a crime and his abuse of power and obstruction of Congress are quite severe based on the current preponderance of the evidence. Maybe if trump could provide some exculpatory witnesses and stop blocking the other witnesses that 75% of the American people want to hear from there would be a different case.
Also, I'm not surprised you love his stupid nicknames considering his biggest fanboy supporters are as childish as he is.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
If you think any President wants to be “impeached” you are mistaken. Trump and all Presidents in the future now face the reality that impeachment can be a purely partisan process. No crime is actually needed to be impeached.
But, for removal I believe any US Senate will require an actual crime. To remove a sitting President for purely political reasons is wrong. Only an actual crime (serious) warrants removal from office IMHO.
Trump will not be removed from office. Vector will need to convince the voters that Communist Sanders is the better choice to lead the nation.
But, for removal I believe any US Senate will require an actual crime. To remove a sitting President for purely political reasons is wrong. Only an actual crime (serious) warrants removal from office IMHO.
Trump will not be removed from office. Vector will need to convince the voters that Communist Sanders is the better choice to lead the nation.
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 195
- Reaction score
- 35
I wonder what vector will think about bipartisan support for Trump’s acquittal which will most likely happen. At least politicians aren’t dumb enough to see the precedent a political lynching creates. Again ironically the Democratic Party could never accept Trump winning and unfortunately for them this bought them 4 more years of Trump.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Once it's determined that impeachment in the House has absolutely no consequences if your partisan lackeys in the Senate don't care about truth, plenty of presidents will engage in impeachable behavior because money and power are just that alluring.
And keep parroting no crime over and over, you totally get more convincing just cause you say it a bunch
"
You (for the umpteenth time): No crime happened!
Me: Holding up the aid was a crime as it violated the ICA. Further, trump learned of the whistleblower complaint in August, on Sept 9 Congress started an investigation, and trump only released the aid on Sept 11 after the jig was up. He got caught in the middle of the scheme. Plain and simple. An attempted crime is still a crime.
“
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Back here on planet earth the chances of a bipartisan acquittal are essentially zero.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
Your facts are incorrect. Trump is NOT charged with any crime. Please list the Federal statute that the House has charged Trump with. Do not list your personal views of the law. I want the statute that Trump was impeached for by the House. That is what he is on trial for. "Abuse of power" is vague and not a crime.
1. Bribery- That's real crime. Yet, the House did not impeach him on this
2. Extortion- Another real crime
3. ICA- Why was he not formally impeached on that law?
This is a purely partisan impeachment and Joe Manchin will vote to acquit.
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2007
- Messages
- 22,315
- Reaction score
- 8,965
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,501
- Reaction score
- 8,784
You have mentioned several times that Pres Trump violated the ICA. What kind of crime does that represent? Felony? Misdemeanor? Parking ticket? IDK. If it's a parking ticket, then we are really mincing words here about the Pres committing a crime. If felonious, then it's something altogether different.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 528
- Reaction score
- 606
back to your douchy ways i see. trump fanboys are childish really productive there. I think people have heard enough from you. go relax somewhere before you stroke out.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
Good attempt trying to cloud the issue, but as you yourself pointed out earlier, a crime (even though trump committed one by ordering mulvaney and omb to hold the aid) isn’t necessary for impeachment. Further, Barr is a political hack and is functioning as Trump’s personal attorney like Roy Cohn, not as the USAG, hence he wouldn’t dare dream of appointing anyone to investigate trump’s crimes or impeachable acts anyway. Regardless, there is a DOJ memo stating that the president can’t be indicted so your point about “Trump not charged with a crime” doesn’t make any sense anyway.
As for being bipartisan, all of two or three GOP senators want witnesses. Does that make having witnesses bipartisan?
As Lindsey and trumps lawyers Dershowitz and Starr pointed out 20 yrs ago, and as trumps lawyer Robert Ray pointed out this month, a crime is not necessary for impeachable articles abuse of power and obstruction.
How bout contribute something or stfu, thx
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2006
- Messages
- 7,100
- Reaction score
- 17,534
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2018
- Messages
- 3,501
- Reaction score
- 8,784
You have said several times violating the ICA was a crime. I don't know if it is. I was asking you, since you said it, just what kind of crime was it? A felony, misdemeanor, parking ticket, something else? If it is a crime, shouldn't it be in the federal registry with punishments outlines? I know the budget office said it was a crime, but no one has ever elaborated on it.
How did he do that?
- Status