By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Why are democrats wasting time with Trump's impeachment?

I like how Vindman tore Gym Jordan a new one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s01jHGhn6k



Around the Network
numberwang said:
SpokenTruth said:

You didn't read anything else in this thread did you?  We already touched on that.  This is making you look bad.

No, the video was not here. This is the most central point. You don't want this to be investigated?

Even more disappointing that Dems are complaining that Trump didn't deliver American weapons into a war zone fast enough. Reverse clown world.

I didn't say the video was here I said we touched on that subject.  Go back and read. 

I'm not sure I follow your second paragraph.  Can you elaborate?  I'm not familiar with any complaints about us not sending weapons into war zone fast enough.  Is this recent?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

thismeintiel said:
It's pretty simple really. They're scared to death that he's going to win in 2020 because their candidates aren't very good. So they're going to use the full force of the media and this ridiculous impeachment, with nothing but hearsay and presumptions as their evidence, to try and get him out of office before they have to actually let the American people decide who's president.

You're 1,000% right. They're so scared of losing, they feel the only way to "win" is to use bullshot hearsay as actual evidence. For gods sake.... the extreme left has been crying impeachment literally from day 1, and actually before he even won. Trump derangement syndrome is real and spreading. Its hilarious that arm chair lawyers think they know better. The extreme left went after russia collusion forever, now, it's being flip flopped as quid pro quo, to bribery to whatever fits the moment of the day or minute. This is a sad joke that people lick up. Its dumb as hell.



LudicrousSpeed said:
If a Democrat were in office and did the same thing Trump did then Republicans would be doing the same shit Democrats are. And just like we currently have Republicans crying like bitches about how unfair the process is and etc etc you’d have Democrats crying the same shit. As bad as they want to appear superior to one another they are just different sides of the same shit smeared coin.

Trump fucked up. Not surprising, he’s literally a piece of shit.

PortisheadBiscuit said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
If a Democrat were in office and did the same thing Trump did then Republicans would be doing the same shit Democrats are. And just like we currently have Republicans crying like bitches about how unfair the process is and etc etc you’d have Democrats crying the same shit. As bad as they want to appear superior to one another they are just different sides of the same shit smeared coin.

Trump fucked up. Not surprising, he’s literally a piece of shit.

Exactly! 

Nope, the Democrats will condemn it and make them resign, just like what they did to Al Franken over something a lot less compared to Trump.

Last edited by deskpro2k3 - on 22 November 2019

DryHeat said:
Chris Hu said:

Did you actually read the transcript or are you like all the Republicans and want to ignore the truth.  Trump is and was a criminal for most of his life.

Yes I did read it. The favor was in regards to the election meddling in 2016 and had nothing to do with Biden and withholding aid. That meddling, as reported in Politico and the Washington Post, favored the Clinton campaign. Democrats don't get to spend years on a never ending fishing expedition against Trump, and yet get shielded from having their own actions investigated. Each party holds the other accountable. That's how a democracy works.

In any case, support for impeachment is tanking badly because people see there is no crime.

When he asked Zelinsky to do him a favor, he specifically asked him to work with Attorney General Barr on it.
And the things he said he wanted them to work with Barr on were: The firing of a prosecutor, Crowdtrike, 'the server', and about Biden and his son.

"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."

What Trump meant about Crowdstrike and a server in Ukraine is anyone's guess, but it seems to be based on his conspiracy theory that Crowdstrike is Ukraine-based , and it is not. It is based in Sunnyvale, California, and has a big office in Arlington, Virginia.
And the server he's talking about is apparently not a server.
But the theory goes that the DNC framed Russia for the election interference in 2016, and that Biden covered it up with the help of Ukraine officials. And that Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire said prosecutor for investigating his son.

This guy being extremely prone to conspiracy theories not based in reality has been well known since day 1. (His tweet about the millions of illegal votes for Hillary, etc.)
Either way, Ukraine aid was withheld until the day after the house demanded acting DNI to hand over the whistle blower complaint.

Last edited by Hiku - on 22 November 2019

Around the Network
Hiku said:
aiwass said:

Favor = "A gracious, friendly, or obliging act that is freely granted."
Quid pro quo = "Something that is given in return for something else or accepted as a reciprocal part of an exchange."

The only way you can make this bullshit work is if you want to rewrite history and redefine what words actually mean. This whole thing is a stretch, but if you want to make your case you're going to have to do better than that.

You forgot the word 'though'.

Though = "indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously".

Indicating that the aid was reliant on the 'favor'.

Did you not read that he wanted to BUY more Javelin missiles? If they were buying them, that wasn't related to the "aid". 

Bottom line: it's absurd to say that Trump wanted to withhold aid until they "dug up dirt on Biden" but never actually told anyone of his intentions, most notably the Ukrainians. I can't believe people who appear to be intelligent in other ways can believe such fantasy. I guess that's what blind hate will do to you.

Last edited by DryHeat - on 22 November 2019

DryHeat said:
Hiku said:

You forgot the word 'though'.

Though = "indicating that a factor qualifies or imposes restrictions on what was said previously".

Indicating that the aid was reliant on the 'favor'.

Did you not read that he wanted to BUY more Javelin missiles? If they were buying them, that wasn't "aid". 

It's absurd to say that Trump wanted to withhold aid until they "dug up dirt on Biden" but never actually told anyone of his intentions, most notably the Ukrainians. It's just ridiculous.

Yeah. Did you not read the sentence right before that?

"I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense."

The topic was defense.
And Trump asked for 'a favor though', that Barr would contact him about. And withheld $400 million in aid for months, until the very day after the house demanded the acting DNI to hand over the whistle blower complaint.
Both of those things were obviously just a coincidence.

Secondly, I don't know where you get the idea that Trump didn't tell anyone his intentions. He told Zelensky in the call what he wanted him to work on with Barr.

"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."

Last edited by Hiku - on 22 November 2019

In case you don't know, Barr is currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe (many criminal charges are expected, one leaked out today already). Barr asked Trump to ask Zelensky for his help in this matter. It's as simple as that.

You can read more about the Ukrainian meddling here: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You are equivocating all over the place, partly because you don't understand the context and back-story.

I'll say it again, not one single witness said that Trump told him or her that aid was contingent on "digging up dirt on Biden". That is what the Democrats claimed, and that is what they did not prove. That's why the articles of impeachment will be a farce that get laughed out of the Senate, and haunt Democrats in swing districts next year.

Last edited by DryHeat - on 22 November 2019

DryHeat said:

In case you don't know, Barr is currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe (many criminal charges are expected, one leaked out today already). Barr asked Trump to ask Zelensky for his help in this matter. It's as simple as that.

You can read more about the Ukrainian meddling here: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You are equivocating all over the place, partly because you don't understand the context and back-story.

I'll say it again, not one single witness said that Trump told him or her that aid was contingent on "digging up dirt on Biden". That is what the Democrats claimed, and that is what they did not prove. That's why the articles of impeachment will be a farce that get laughed out of the Senate, and haunt Democrats in swing districts next year.

You, much like impeachment inquiry sessions, are missing something.

Contempt of Congress - 2 U.S.C. § 192 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 2. The Congress § 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.

Trump, the White House and several others have violated 2 U.S.C. § 192.  This will be included as an Article of Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice.  It requires no witnesses and no testimony.  The evidence is all factual documentation.  And for the Senate to ignore this article would in itself be a violation of multiple codes meaning each senator themselves would be open for impeachment.

I don't think you understand just how much of a corner they have backed themselves into. The failure to comply with the congressional subpoenas for testimony and documentation was an even greater screw up than the actual bribery. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
DryHeat said:

In case you don't know, Barr is currently investigating the origins of the Russia probe (many criminal charges are expected, one leaked out today already). Barr asked Trump to ask Zelensky for his help in this matter. It's as simple as that.

You can read more about the Ukrainian meddling here: https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

You are equivocating all over the place, partly because you don't understand the context and back-story.

I'll say it again, not one single witness said that Trump told him or her that aid was contingent on "digging up dirt on Biden". That is what the Democrats claimed, and that is what they did not prove. That's why the articles of impeachment will be a farce that get laughed out of the Senate, and haunt Democrats in swing districts next year.

You, much like impeachment inquiry sessions, are missing something.

Contempt of Congress - 2 U.S.C. § 192 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 2. The Congress § 192. Refusal of witness to testify or produce papers.

Trump, the White House and several others have violated 2 U.S.C. § 192.  This will be included as an Article of Impeachment for Obstruction of Justice.  It requires no witnesses and no testimony.  The evidence is all factual documentation.  And for the Senate to ignore this article would in itself be a violation of multiple codes meaning each senator themselves would be open for impeachment.

I don't think you understand just how much of a corner they have backed themselves into. The failure to comply with the congressional subpoenas for testimony and documentation was an even greater screw up than the actual bribery. 

According to the constitution, the executive branch is entitled to keep some things confidential at the discretion of the president. Always has, always will. It has to be that way. Trump would be gutting the office of president for himself and all future presidents if he ceded all power and authority to congress. 

If Democrats want to compel people to testify, they can take them to court. That is the remedy that congress has, not a phoney charge of "obstruction".

Last edited by DryHeat - on 23 November 2019