The Village BBS

General Category => The Political Forum => Topic started by: kbvette on November 09, 2019, 07:47:55 PM

Title: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: kbvette on November 09, 2019, 07:47:55 PM
               
            PBS and CBS will be televising  the Trump impeachment hearings live.My idealogical opposites have been silent so far,possibly they are mesmerized Trumps awesomeness LOL or hiding head in sand?

   https://www.broadcastingcable.com/news/pbs-going-gavel-to-gavel-with-trump-impeachment-hearings
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on November 10, 2019, 10:14:02 PM
Simple question, is there any possibility that the Democrats will find him not guilty?  From even before he took the oath of office, there were calls from House Democrats and their base for Impeachment. This has always been a forgone conclusion just looking for a manufactured excuse.  It's a sham and a coup.  I want all elected officals held accountable, but it's impossible for me to put any trust in this vile process or the motivations of those participating. 
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: xenon75 on November 11, 2019, 08:37:46 AM
Of course he will be found "guilty".  It is astounding to think that if this is the new normal, that the lefties think this won't happen to their president next time?  Super slippery slope and it will only hurt all of us regardless of ideology.  I guess it is not too surprising as it was the democrats who burned the country down when Lincoln freed their slaves.  Probably over due for 1776 part deux or another civil war anyway.  See you on the other side.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 11, 2019, 09:54:30 PM
Simple question, is there any possibility that the Democrats will find him not guilty?
Probably not.

Simple question #1: If impeached, is there any possibility the GOP-controlled Senate will do anything about it?  My answer.... no chance.  There is no room for truth, no matter what the evidence shows.  Partisan to the death.

Simple question #2: Do you remember Ken Star and Bill Clinton?

And the final simple question: Do you think it is right for ANY POTUS to withhold congress approved financial assistance unless a foreign government provides dirt/negative public statements about his rival?  Forget about trump/left/right/fox/cnn.

The level of hypocrisy on display is amazing.  Take a stroll down memory lane and watch Lindsay Grahams statements about impeachment during the Clinton years.... Check him out now.  Has even made public statements that he wouldn't even look at new evidence because his mind is made up.  Now there is a guy that protects democracy and the law.  But “look over there.... where is the whistleblower...”. Who gives a sh!t.  If someone calls in a tip that a bank is being robbed, and the culprit is apprehended in the act, is the defense going to be “but wait.... who made that phone call.”  Ridiculously laughable.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: xenon75 on November 12, 2019, 09:27:47 AM


And the final simple question: Do you think it is right for ANY POTUS to withhold congress approved financial assistance unless a foreign government provides dirt/negative public statements about his rival?  Forget about trump/left/right/fox/cnn.




The answer to your final simple question is yes it is acceptable for any POTUS to withhold the financial assistance.  In fact there are three laws on the books relating to this.  2 U.S.C. Section 684, 2 U.S.C. Section 683 and 31 U.S.C. 1512.  Mind you this has been done for decades by virtually all POTUS's in history. 

Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 12, 2019, 10:26:44 AM
Probably not.

Simple question #1: If impeached, is there any possibility the GOP-controlled Senate will do anything about it?  My answer.... no chance.  There is no room for truth, no matter what the evidence shows.  Partisan to the death.

Simple question #2: Do you remember Ken Star and Bill Clinton?

And the final simple question: Do you think it is right for ANY POTUS to withhold congress approved financial assistance unless a foreign government provides dirt/negative public statements about his rival?  Forget about trump/left/right/fox/cnn.

The level of hypocrisy on display is amazing.  Take a stroll down memory lane and watch Lindsay Grahams statements about impeachment during the Clinton years.... Check him out now.  Has even made public statements that he wouldn't even look at new evidence because his mind is made up.  Now there is a guy that protects democracy and the law.  But “look over there.... where is the whistleblower...”. Who gives a sh!t.  If someone calls in a tip that a bank is being robbed, and the culprit is apprehended in the act, is the defense going to be “but wait.... who made that phone call.”  Ridiculously laughable.

- Ken Star allowed Bill Clinton's attorneys at all proceedings. So did the Nixon Impeachment proceedings. Adam Schiff has not.

- Ken Star did not have any secret witnesses. The only public witness to the Ukraine call now claims he attempted to "Correct" the transcript a.k.a. edit transcripts behind the back of white house officials. Adam Schiff has secret witnesses.

- Ken Star did not summarily set ground rules for proceedings that intentionally left out potential evidence, culprits and witnesses before the proceedings even began that would potentially incriminate his party. Including Joe Biden, His son, Ukranian ambassadors in the US, Democrats who knew of the call before impeachment proceedings began etc. Adam Schiff has already claimed that he will not call on key witnesses that Republicans want.

- Ken Star had to contend with the media covering up Clinton's actions. (Newsweek knew of Monica Lewinsky over a year before the scandal and sat on the story that was eventually broken by Druge creating the world's first internet media scandal). Adam Schiff has the left wing media on his side.

If Trump really did try to manipulate all of this then he should be impeached. With that said, i do believe it should make Biden ineligible to run as well as the evidence against him and his son is just as damning.  The most hilarious part of this is that if They don't manage to impeach Trump on time and they do it during or after the election cycle, he could very well see Pence steam-roll over all other candidates and become President. If Trump is impeached during his second term we could very likely see Pence be a 3 term president.

The media doesn't want to talk about this but it's clear that the American People believe the allegations against Joe Biden. He's been bleeding approval numbers ever since this started. Warren has an uphill battle not only as a woman but as someone generally perceived to be unlikable by Republicans and independents. She won't win unless there's some nuclear scandal that fractures the GOP and leaves no other candidates.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on November 13, 2019, 12:46:05 AM
Doesn't anyone else find it hilarious at this point what Bill Clinton was impeached for relative to what's going on with Trump?

From the beginning, impeachment talk about Trump always centered around whether he utilized a foreign country to get power, or to keep power, in return for favors he could return as a result of that power.  While the favors to Russia is still an open question, we have yet another country where he did ask for favors, by his own admission, and within an incomplete transcript.  To call this a sham and a coup is either extremely naive or purposeful ignorance of the facts.

If someone really wanted Trump impeached they would have put him on the stand and asked him, under oath, about his extramarital affairs.  But no one cares about that.... this time around.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on November 13, 2019, 05:23:18 AM
Not really, no. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he also lost his law license for). The impeachment investigation was started because he abused his power with an intern by having sex with her and then going on tv and directly lying to public about it during a press conference. He and Hillary then went on a coverup press tour until the dress came out and they couldn’t deny it any longer. Add in his history of sexual misconduct including a long history of allegations of rape of subordinates as well as Hillary’s history of covering it up, and the guy is a scumbag and so is she.  Unless you’ve got Trump raping subordinates, lying under oath, and Melania and the press covering it up, I don’t see the equivalentcy.  I wasn’t surprised to hear that Clinton was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s island.  None of that matters to the press and to some of his supporters because he’s a Democrat. Like Clinton said, I guess it all comes down what your definition of “is” is.  The Truth doesn’t matter.

Trump on the other hand is being attacked by Democrats in the House (calling it an investigation would imply they care about the truth) for a phone call that he made asking that corruption and possibly the former Vice President be investigated for apparently abusing his power to interfere in a foreign country to enrich his family. Biden bragged on camera to the very thing that Trump is being accused of by people who’s only evidence against Trump is their impressions and concerns. Should we not want to investigate a Vice President who abused his office by extorting a foreign country for his family’s profit?  What about the 1.5 Billion investment that Biden’s son received from China after he visited with his Dad on Air Force 2?  What promise or suggestion of favors did Hunter Biden or his Dad make to receive that investment?  Is that why Biden is soft on China and says they’re no threat?  Again, some people aren’t interested because we’re talking about Democrats. Who know, a fair investigation may actually clear him of wrong doing, though I doubt it.

If this farce in the House was not part of a concerted effort by Democrats since before he even took the oath of office, by career deep state employees who have close ties to Biden and the Obama administration and think they know best, and by a biased press that has a personal hatred of Trump... and if the Republicans had the same rights to call witnesses that the Democrats had during the Clinton and Nixon impeachments,, then maybe you could call all this legitimate, but since if all those existed, we wouldn’t have this coup in the first place, it’s a non-starter.

We’re in a Cold Civil War. Trump will not be removed as President as the Senate won’t vote to remove him.  The left and Democrats will be upset. Trump will likely win re-election and the left and some Democrats will loose their mind and we may see more violence like we’ve already seen against Trump supporters.  The farce of an investigation and impeachment will give false hope to those who have irrational fears of Trump and who already equate speech with violence.  If i’m wrong, and Trump is successfully removed, his supporters will see it as a successful coup and a subversion of Democracy and the Constitution by authoritarian Communists. That could easily lead to violence as well by his more radical followers. Either way, this circus is dangerous and destabilizing to civil society and I worry for our country during the coming years if this pattern continues.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 14, 2019, 10:09:33 PM
Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Vadym Prystaiko testimony today:

“I have never seen a direct relationship between investigations and security assistance.”
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: kbvette on November 15, 2019, 05:49:29 PM

                              Um, maybe my Trump supporting friends could ya know like cable,call,email ,prayer chain,put pen to letter...….that tweeting
disparaging remarks about a person giving testimony possibly against them is low brow and generally frowned upon
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on November 15, 2019, 06:02:32 PM
Here’s what Trump tweeted that had the Dems and the Press so outraged:

Quote
”Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors....They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O.”

According to the Dems and some of the Press, that’s witness tampering.  You be the judge, but I don’t see how this statement would be any different if it was given during a press conference than through a tweet. I guess I’d you’re the corporate press, you’d be salty that he can bypass you to get his message out, and if your a Democrat Congressman, you’d be looking for anything at this point to escape from the mess you’ve created.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: kbvette on November 15, 2019, 06:23:15 PM
Here’s what Trump tweeted that had the Dems and the Press so outraged:

According to the Dems and some of the Press, that’s witness tampering.  You be the judge, but I don’t see how this statement would be any different if it was given during a press conference than through a tweet. I guess I’d you’re the corporate press, you’d be salty that he can bypass you to get his message out, and if your a Democrat Congressman, you’d be looking for anything at this point to escape from the mess you’ve created.
  The mess that Trump created full stop.period!
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on November 15, 2019, 11:00:00 PM
Unless you’ve got Trump raping subordinates, lying under oath, and Melania and the press covering it up, I don’t see the equivalentcy.  I wasn’t surprised to hear that Clinton was a frequent visitor to Epstein’s island.  None of that matters to the press and to some of his supporters because he’s a Democrat. Like Clinton said, I guess it all comes down what your definition of “is” is.  The Truth doesn’t matter.

Exactly... there is no equivalency.  One went through an impeachment inquiry for having an extramarital affair while in office, and the other is going through an impeachment inquiry for abuses of power while in office, involving withholding aid to a foreign country used to get them to help him suppress a challenger to his power. 

It's important to note that Clinton was accused of having an extramarital affair with Lewinsky, not of rape as you seem to be hinting at.  While there were 4 other accusers, they weren't part of the impeachment inquiries.  If he just confessed, he wouldn't have been impeached.

Trump has at least 23 accusers of sexual misconduct including rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment and neither he nor Melania confessed to any of them, regardless of the existence of audio proof, paper trails, etc.  There is audio tape of Trump claiming that as a celebrity he's allowed to do that.  It's the same thing, but far worse, except for one detail: it was before he went into office.  And most important... if he confessed to the impeachment charges, he absolutely would be impeached. 

That's the big difference you are overlooking.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on November 15, 2019, 11:03:36 PM

The answer to your final simple question is yes it is acceptable for any POTUS to withhold the financial assistance.  In fact there are three laws on the books relating to this.  2 U.S.C. Section 684, 2 U.S.C. Section 683 and 31 U.S.C. 1512.  Mind you this has been done for decades by virtually all POTUS's in history.

Yes it's acceptable, except for the "why"
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 16, 2019, 07:31:16 AM
On Trump bribery allegations

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

----------
Admitting the Obama White house coached her before her 2016 senate hearing.

“The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings [in 2016], and this was in the form of practice questions and answers. This was your deposition and you testified that on this particular practice Q&A with the Obama State Department, it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption, it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma, is that correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it is.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: kbvette on November 16, 2019, 07:09:00 PM
On Trump bribery allegations

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

----------
Admitting the Obama White house coached her before her 2016 senate hearing.

“The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings [in 2016], and this was in the form of practice questions and answers. This was your deposition and you testified that on this particular practice Q&A with the Obama State Department, it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption, it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma, is that correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it is.
    You all alone in this one... well besides Yosho.the usual cast of characters have been absent..Num Six,Mamushka,Duuuuuug.Jim something,Cry Baby .et al 
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 17, 2019, 09:49:52 AM
    You all alone in this one... well besides Yosho.the usual cast of characters have been absent..Num Six,Mamushka,Duuuuuug.Jim something,Cry Baby .et al

I quite literally just quoted people's own words from a public hearing setup by your own party. They are your own key witnesses to supposed wrongdoing and you're this triggered?
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on November 17, 2019, 11:43:41 AM
I’ve watched several Democrat Corporate Press outlets commentating on how terrible Trump’s tweets were and how they were witness intimidation, chilling, end of the world,  etc, etc.

I understand that the Industrial Press hates Trump and has spewed that hate 24/7 for the last 3 years causing many Democrats to reactively hate anything the man does. If you can though, please put your feelings aside for a moment and tell me what is so wrong with his tweet?  How is it witness intimidation, and how is it any different that if he gave his opinion during a press conference?  Only about a 3rd of the tweet was even directed at the Ambassador and was pretty mild criticism. Listening to the typical outlets, this should be grounds for impeachment itself. (I noticed that none of them actually quoted or displayed the tweet though... interesting)

Quote
”Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go? Then fast forward to Ukraine, where the new Ukrainian President spoke unfavorably about her in my second phone call with him. It is a U.S. President’s absolute right to appoint ambassadors....They call it “serving at the pleasure of the President.” The U.S. now has a very strong and powerful foreign policy, much different than proceeding administrations. It is called, quite simply, America First! With all of that, however, I have done FAR more for Ukraine than O.”
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: xenon75 on November 18, 2019, 12:45:00 PM
Fascinating to see the terms change as the week went on... From Quid Pro Quo, to Extortion and now Bribery all based on a focus group.  Shouldn't the supposed high crime and misdemeanors determine what it is called?


Guess you have to grasp at banned straws when you have LITERALLY nothing to go on.  Amazing to see so many people just opening their mouths and devouring whatever garbage the media industrial complex pours in. 

What happened to objective critical thinking without emotion?

I am not a Trump supporter but I am damn sure not on the side of these communists/socialist traitorous bastards.

Why do ya'll hate the United States of America so much to support what is happening?  This is not the Republic our founders left to us.  Do you really think a two tiered justice system will be tolerated?  Do you really think you will be spared if the country goes down the socialist hellhole because you are "woke"?  If socialism is the answer why aren't you living in Venezuela, Sweden, etc?  Leave the Republic alone, please find your happiness elsewhere.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: 0geist0 on November 18, 2019, 02:33:48 PM
Fascinating to see the terms change as the week went on... From Quid Pro Quo, to Extortion and now Bribery all based on a focus group.  Shouldn't the supposed high crime and misdemeanors determine what it is called?


Guess you have to grasp at banned straws when you have LITERALLY nothing to go on.  Amazing to see so many people just opening their mouths and devouring whatever garbage the media industrial complex pours in. 

What happened to objective critical thinking without emotion?

I am not a Trump supporter but I am damn sure not on the side of these communists/socialist traitorous bastards.

Why do ya'll hate the United States of America so much to support what is happening?  This is not the Republic our founders left to us.  Do you really think a two tiered justice system will be tolerated?  Do you really think you will be spared if the country goes down the socialist hellhole because you are "woke"?  If socialism is the answer why aren't you living in Venezuela, Sweden, etc?  Leave the Republic alone, please find your happiness elsewhere.
What he said
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on November 19, 2019, 01:12:31 AM
If you can though, please put your feelings aside for a moment and tell me what is so wrong with his tweet?  How is it witness intimidation, and how is it any different that if he gave his opinion during a press conference? 

Because it was an attempt to smear a witness in the middle of her testimony.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on November 19, 2019, 03:37:57 AM
Because it was an attempt to smear a witness in the middle of her testimony.

This is like the original call for you isn't it.  The text is litterally right there but you seem to see what isn't written.  What part is intimidating?  Why do you jump to ascribing intimation as motive rather than the more obvious motive that Trump was voicing his opinion to the public on what he views as a partisan actor?  How is a Tweet different than a comment to a reporter?  Perhaps most obviously, how would she have even known during the testimony if Schiff hadn't directly pointed it out to her??  If Trump was intimidating as you and the Democratic Press say, then certainly Schiff was carrying out that intimidation right?  This is such a stupid attack by Schiff and the "Press."
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 19, 2019, 07:50:58 AM
Because it was an attempt to smear a witness in the middle of her testimony.

How do you intimidate a witness in the middle of her testimony away from the supposed "intimidator"?


The biggest problem with the impeachment hearings is that largely democrats don't even bother listening to the details. Marie Yovanovitch repatedly said that she knew of no wrong-doing by the Trump administration. She confirmed she was coached by the Obama administration back in 2016 to specifically deal with questions regarding Hunter Biden and the Biden family. Finally it was revealed that she was fired after attempting to get yet another Ukrainian official fired to which the Ukrainian government voiced their displeasure to the US resulting in the Trump administration letting her go.

We have a liar in the midst of the testimony already.
 State Department official David Holmes testified yesterday that he notified Bill Taylor (who testified last week) about a phone call between Trump and EU ambassador Gordon Sondland concerning an investigation by the Ukraine on Hunter Biden. Taylor testified last week stating he was never notified of any phone call and that he only learned of the call this past July.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: xenon75 on November 21, 2019, 08:34:26 AM
Well impeachment just went up in smoke...  Bold added for those that have trouble reading facts.


..Ambassador Sondland admitted that his conclusion tying the release of the withheld security aid to Ukraine to "some kind of action on the public statement that we had been discussing for many weeks" was only his own presumption, supported by no direct evidence. He conceded, in response to a question from Republican Rep. Mike Turner, that nobody told him that President Trump linked the Ukraine aid to a Biden investigation. "No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?" Rep. Turner asked. Sondland replied: "Yes." In a follow-up question, Rep. Turner asked, "So you really have no testimony here today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Ambassador Sondland replied, "Other than my own presumption." At another point in his testimony, the ambassador downgraded his "presumption" of a quid pro quo to "my own personal guess...
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 21, 2019, 05:34:59 PM
Quote
Not really, no. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath (which he also lost his law license for). The impeachment investigation was started because he abused his power with an intern by having sex with her and then going on tv and directly lying to public about it during a press conference.
Now this made me chuckle.  Clinton lied about an extramarital affair, under oath, and to the american public on tv.  If lying to the american public on tv, or in a tweet, was the cause for impeachment investigation, these would have started on day 1.  What are we up to, 13,000+ lies and misrepresentations?  I will give him credit for never lying under oath... because the Dems have not been able to get him under oath...   I'd give him 10 minutes... being generous. 
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 21, 2019, 05:40:52 PM
Quote
- Ken Star allowed Bill Clinton's attorneys at all proceedings. So did the Nixon Impeachment proceedings. Adam Schiff has not.
Which one of Trump's attorneys would you like to have at the closed door sessions?  Cohen?  That won't work.  Or how about Rudy, who is attached to Trump at the hip on this mess.  How about all the testimony being out in the open this week?

Quote
- Ken Star did not have any secret witnesses. The only public witness to the Ukraine call now claims he attempted to "Correct" the transcript a.k.a. edit transcripts behind the back of white house officials. Adam Schiff has secret witnesses.
Wasn't Sonland a direct witness?  Who stated clearly yesterday there was a clear quid-pro-quo? (not counting him relaying the later conversation in which Trump claimed "I want no quid pro quo"... AFTER the sh!t was already through the fan.  I am surprised Trump didn't say "To All Listening In On This Conversation, I Donald Trump In No Way Shape Or Form, Hereby Engaged In Any Illegal Quid Pro Quo, With Anyone, Ever.  Not even Stormy.")  Btw, wouldnt the 130K also be Quid Pro Quo?   

Quote
- Ken Star did not summarily set ground rules for proceedings that intentionally left out potential evidence, culprits and witnesses before the proceedings even began that would potentially incriminate his party. Including Joe Biden, His son, Ukranian ambassadors in the US, Democrats who knew of the call before impeachment proceedings began etc. Adam Schiff has already claimed that he will not call on key witnesses that Republicans want.
So you want to call the whistleblower to testify?  About what?  I guess he/she wasn't even there, which the GOP is already saying hearsay, which is garbage testimony.  So why bother?  How about Trump testify?  He was on the call.
By the way how is Schiff not allowing certain witnesses (if that is even true) to testify any different than the current administration refusing to testify, even though subpoenaed?  Even Mulvaney that said, "That’s why we held up the money … I have news for everybody: Get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy."

Quote
- Ken Star had to contend with the media covering up Clinton's actions. (Newsweek knew of Monica Lewinsky over a year before the scandal and sat on the story that was eventually broken by Druge creating the world's first internet media scandal). Adam Schiff has the left wing media on his side.
Ken Starr.  The man who brought down the president due to a lying about an extramarital affair.  Who represented child sex trafficker Epstein.  And if I recall pretty much got austed from Baylor for a sex scandal.  A true representative of the GOP values. 

Quote
If Trump really did try to manipulate all of this then he should be impeached.
Now that the hearings have been in the open, on TV, all week, (eliminate your first point about the attorney), do you think he should be impeached?

Quote
The media doesn't want to talk about this but it's clear that the American People believe the allegations against Joe Biden.  He's been bleeding approval numbers ever since this started.
Based on poll numbers?  If you believe poll numbers, take a look at the percentage of people that think Trump did what he is being accused of, and should be impeached.     
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 21, 2019, 06:18:27 PM
Quote
Well impeachment just went up in smoke...  Bold added for those that have trouble reading facts.
Most here can read, thanks for the genuine concern.

I watched the hearings.  Republicans - Attack the process.  Don't look at any evidence.  Cry about the importance of the whistle blower.  Don't look at the evidence.  Attack the folks that dedicated their lives to the government and military of our country.   Don't look at the evidence.  Democrats - Didn't present much better.  At the end of the day, there is not one ounce of me that believes Trump didn't stall military aid for personal gain. 
- But Noooooo!!!!  He wanted to investigate election corruption.  C'mon, seriously? 

Sonland also stated clearly (watch or read his opening remarks, not the paraphrased Trump tweets or Fox and Friends version) that there was quid-pro-quo... through Guiliani, at presidents orders, all knew, etc... the only thing he left out was Sonland's admission to the ties to Ukraine funding.  But the majority of other testimony, from what I would consider credible witnesses, corroborated what was going on.

By the way, didn't you hear?  Trump really doesn't even know that guy.  Took a photo with him once at the County Fair.  He thinks it was by the elephant ear booth, but he can't be sure.  But he hears he's a good guy.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 21, 2019, 06:33:39 PM
Which one of Trump's attorneys would you like to have at the closed door sessions?  Cohen?  That won't work.  Or how about Rudy, who is attached to Trump at the hip on this mess.  How about all the testimony being out in the open this week?

How would Sessions even work into this? Apparently he was gone before this started. They won't even allow WH lawyers into the proceedings. They won't allow Jay Sekulow in there either who represents Trump personally and is a part of the WH legal staff.

Wasn't Sonland a direct witness?  Who stated clearly yesterday there was a clear quid-pro-quo? (not counting him relaying the later conversation in which Trump claimed "I want no quid pro quo"... AFTER the sh!t was already through the fan.  I am surprised Trump didn't say "To All Listening In On This Conversation, I Donald Trump In No Way Shape Or Form, Hereby Engaged In Any Illegal Quid Pro Quo, With Anyone, Ever.  Not even Stormy.")  Btw, wouldnt the 130K also be Quid Pro Quo?   
So you want to call the whistleblower to testify?  About what?  I guess he/she wasn't even there, which the GOP is already saying hearsay, which is garbage testimony.  So why bother?  How about Trump testify?  He was on the call.

Sonland like every single other person has both modified his written testimony and contradicted himself on multiple occasions. We need to be brutally honest here, Every single witness put on the stand has heresy.


By the way how is Schiff not allowing certain witnesses (if that is even true) to testify any different than the current administration refusing to testify, even though subpoenaed?   

Schiff is not only lying about the whistleblower but also revealed that eric ciaramella was the whistleblower in written depositions a day before Trump Jr revealed his identity. To top that off, eric ciaramella was named as a white house leaker as far back as early 2017 to which multiple progressive publications like Salon defended him even though they specifically mentioned him by name. oops...

(https://thefederalist.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/HPSCI-Schiff-Taylor-Transcript-Ciaramella.jpg)

Ukrainian officials just announced an indictment into a former head of Burisma and revealed that Biden's borderline-incestual son scored 16.5 million dollars which was dumped into a bank in Latvia. Another testimony proved that Obama officials involved with the Ukraine were specifically being trained to speak on the Biden-Ukraine situation before they left office. Doesn't that kind of merit at least having a look at the allegations?

Biden's son apparently sired a child with an Arkansas woman. The moment that DNA test is confirmed, his financials will be put into question in an American court. Do you honestly think that they won't bring up Burisma?


Now that the hearings have been in the open, on TV, all week, (eliminate your first point about the attorney), do you think he should be impeached?
Based on poll numbers?  If you believe poll numbers, take a look at the percentage of people that think Trump did what he is being accused of, and should be impeached.     

I've said it before, If he did do this then he should be impeached but I also believe that there should 100% be investigations into the Bidens. With that said, Has anyone in any American court been found guilty based on 100% hearsay?  Because that's all we have here at this point.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 22, 2019, 11:17:24 AM
Quote
How would Sessions even work into this? Apparently he was gone before this started.
I meant sessions as in "a meeting of a deliberative or judicial body to conduct its business," not Jeff Sessions.

Quote
They won't even allow WH lawyers into the proceedings.
It wasn't a trial.  It was an investigation run by the house.  All which were televised this week for all of trump's attorneys (past, president, and in jail) to see.

Quote
Sonland like every single other person has both modified his written testimony and contradicted himself on multiple occasions..
Yes.  Once Sonland realized there was evidence he perjured himself, he changed his statement to match the facts.  And if there was another person on the call that had the spine to say "Yes, he held up the payment to get a personal favor," Sonland would have followed suit.

Quote
We need to be brutally honest here, Every single witness put on the stand has heresy... With that said, Has anyone in any American court been found guilty based on 100% hearsay?  Because that's all we have here at this point.
I disagree
See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence
See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/hearsay

Evidence:
The congressional-approved payment was held up by the president. The president asked for a favor to investigate Biden (admitted to by him).  The administration was concerned about why the funding was not released... even started looking into the legality of if.  Ukraine was concerned the funds weren't released and started calling about it.  The whistle blower blew.... and then the funds were magically released.

If not guilty, let Trump testify.  Release the FULL transcript of the call.... not the Trump-edited-and-approved version.

Quote
Ukrainian officials just announced an indictment into a former head of Burisma and revealed that Biden's borderline-incestual son scored 16.5 million dollars which was dumped into a bank in Latvia. Another testimony proved that Obama officials involved with the Ukraine were specifically being trained to speak on the Biden-Ukraine situation before they left office. Doesn't that kind of merit at least having a look at the allegations?  Biden's son apparently sired a child with an Arkansas woman. The moment that DNA test is confirmed, his financials will be put into question in an American court. Do you honestly think that they won't bring up Burisma?

Not sure about the block of conspiracy theory above.  But it really sounds like another "But wait, look over there..."
On another note, Biden's son is NOT running for president.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: kbvette on November 22, 2019, 05:38:01 PM

                               Most of the Ding bat Trump supporters here believe he's the chosen one......as in GOD's chosen one ...he can do no wrong.!
                             
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 22, 2019, 07:34:36 PM
I meant sessions as in "a meeting of a deliberative or judicial body to conduct its business," not Jeff Sessions.

It wasn't a trial.  It was an investigation run by the house.  All which were televised this week for all of trump's attorneys (past, president, and in jail) to see.

You're still not giving a reason why Democrats haven't allowed attorneys into their proceedings

Yes.  Once Sonland realized there was evidence he perjured himself, he changed his statement to match the facts.  And if there was another person on the call that had the spine to say "Yes, he held up the payment to get a personal favor," Sonland would have followed suit.
I disagree
See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/circumstantial-evidence
See: https://www.britannica.com/topic/hearsay

Evidence:
The congressional-approved payment was held up by the president. The president asked for a favor to investigate Biden (admitted to by him).  The administration was concerned about why the funding was not released... even started looking into the legality of if.  Ukraine was concerned the funds weren't released and started calling about it.  The whistle blower blew.... and then the funds were magically released.

If not guilty, let Trump testify.  Release the FULL transcript of the call.... not the Trump-edited-and-approved version.

Not sure about the block of conspiracy theory above.  But it really sounds like another "But wait, look over there..."
On another note, Biden's son is NOT running for president.

At the end of the day all of them have proven to be unreliable at best.

- We also know at least one of them has lied on the stand concerning who communicated with who and when. Taylor flat out denies he ever spoke with the other witness.

- Marie Yovanovitch pushed the idea that Russia was behind it all

- Lt. Col. Vindman admitted to modifying his written testimony with words in which he described as "to increase emphasis" and "a great deal of additional information and perspectives have come to light". Normal people call that perjury. Volker's written deposition also said there was no talks between John Bolton and Alex Danylyuk. He would later recant that. Unreliable witness in every possible way.

- Tim Morrison, Alexander Vindman's former boss, testified in his deposition that he had concerns about Vindman's judgment.

- A former co worker of Taylor was also weary of Vindman and relayed to Taylor that she believed Vindman was leaking information to the press. This is shown in Taylor's written deposition.

- Kurt Volker said he never heard anything about an investigation into Burisnma being linked to anyone at the white house wanting an investigation into Burisma. he also called Biden an "Honorable man".

- White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said she saw nothing inappropriate and that all beyond the conjecture of folks like Vindman and Taylor, all of the testimony was accurate.

-  National Security advisor Lt. General Keith Kellogg wrote a written deposition claiming he was in on the call. he said "heard nothing wrong or improper on the call. I had and have no concerns."



Here we are one week later. Trump's overall approval hit 7 points higher in one week and 10% more independents from one week to the next are now calling the impeachment a sham. The senate have announced their own impeachment inquiry with them announcing subpoenas for Adam Schiff and Joe Biden.  :o
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: mcluvin on November 22, 2019, 07:57:17 PM
In real life, when I encounter someone I think is crazy, I get the f away from them as quickly as possible.  Somehow, on the Internet, I want to debate them.  It is a fool's errand.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Mamushka on November 22, 2019, 09:05:40 PM
In real life, when I encounter someone I think is crazy...

Time to look in the mirror.

You were convinced Trump was going down due to Russian collusion.
You were convinced Trump was going down if only the government would start a investigation into collusion.
You were convinced Trump was going down if only the government would release the Muller report.
You were convinced Trump was going down if only the government would release the full Muller report.
You were convinced Trump was going down if only the government would investigate a Ukrainian phone call.
And on, and on, and on... :roll:

My most crazy girlfriend was less crazy than that.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 23, 2019, 08:58:55 AM
In real life, when I encounter someone I think is crazy, I get the f away from them as quickly as possible.  Somehow, on the Internet, I want to debate them.  It is a fool's errand.

It's actually easier on the internet because you could just like...not read it....
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on November 24, 2019, 10:12:13 AM
Quote
At the end of the day all of them have proven to be unreliable at best.
*sarcasm* Yes.  You should absolutely believe Trump over them.  They had everything to lose in testifying,  Some went against  WH orders to not testify.  Death threats.  Harassment for the rest of their lives.  Who knows what other repercussions they will have.  Pensions lost, who knows.  They did it for the 15 minutes of fame.

I would SURELY believe Trump over them, as he as proven over and over again to be so truthful and honorable.

WTF is wrong with this picture.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on November 27, 2019, 02:41:26 PM
*sarcasm* Yes.  You should absolutely believe Trump over them.  They had everything to lose in testifying,  Some went against  WH orders to not testify.  Death threats.  Harassment for the rest of their lives.  Who knows what other repercussions they will have.  Pensions lost, who knows.  They did it for the 15 minutes of fame.

I would SURELY believe Trump over them, as he as proven over and over again to be so truthful and honorable.

WTF is wrong with this picture.

So you're basically wanting to impeach a president over a handful of people with less than credible records who have a gut feeling because you believe the president is less than credible. Got it.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on December 02, 2019, 03:03:54 AM
What part is intimidating?

How do you intimidate a witness in the middle of her testimony away from the supposed "intimidator"?

Sounds like rhetorical questions.  Did you forget that exact tweet was shown live in the courtroom, during the testimony?

Quote
<After Adam Schiff displayed the Tweet in the court room>

"Now the President in real time is attacking you," Schiff said. "What effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?"

"It's very intimidating," Yovanovitch said.

In other words, it is a consistent pattern of behavior that any witness who testifies against the most powerful man in the world expects to receive payback via public defamation of credibility... and some people can't handle that, which is exactly what The Don is going for.  It is the very definition of intimidation.  "to compel or deter by or as if by threats." 

Quote
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page told the Daily Beast in an interview published Sunday night being the target of President Trump's wrath over the past two years was "like being punched in the gut."

My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He's demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening."

She called Trump's attacks on her "very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States,"

https://www.axios.com/lisa-page-daily-beast-trump-attacks-sickening-75b83eb4-f5f2-41c9-b817-9a6a7d686c68.html
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on December 02, 2019, 07:39:53 AM
Quote
So you're basically wanting to impeach a president over a handful of people with less than credible records who have a gut feeling because you believe the president is less than credible. Got it.

Trump lovers will continue to defend, and deflect.  If you think what Trump did was in the best interest of the country, so be it.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Yosho on December 02, 2019, 01:24:07 PM
Sounds like rhetorical questions.  Did you forget that exact tweet was shown live in the courtroom, during the testimony?

It’s anything but a rhetorical question. I’ll ask again since you ignored my first round of questions - How was President Trump’s statement over Twitter any different than if he’d said that same thing to a reporter?  How would she even known during her testimony if Congressman Schiff hadn’t told her?  If Trump’s statement was intimidating (a conclusion I disagree with) then you have to accept that the one who actually relayed the message during her testimony to illicit a negative reaction was the one who actually carried out that intimidation, not Trump.  This is a silly charge, and had no traction or staying power outside of partisans who already hate Trump.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on December 02, 2019, 08:05:20 PM
Trump lovers will continue to defend, and deflect.  If you think what Trump did was in the best interest of the country, so be it.

Except I've repeatedly said on here that i didn't vote for Trump and still believe he very well may face impeachment and removal over something credible. So far, this doesn't seem to be it.


This past week during the debate all but 2 democratic candidates said they would put harsher conditions on military aid to Israel. 

Tell me, is this quid pro quo? bribery? Blackmail? Intimidation?
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: k7 on December 02, 2019, 08:45:40 PM
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page told the Daily Beast in an interview published Sunday night being the target of President Trump's wrath over the past two years was "like being punched in the gut."
My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He's demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening."
She called Trump's attacks on her "very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States,"
https://www.axios.com/lisa-page-daily-beast-trump-attacks-sickening-75b83eb4-f5f2-41c9-b817-9a6a7d686c68.html


AND

<After Adam Schiff displayed the Tweet in the court room>
"Now the President in real time is attacking you," Schiff said. "What effect do you think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose wrongdoing?"
"It's very intimidating," Yovanovitch said.

nothing against baiter. but these 2...lol. it's twitter, you morons. where every axxhole on earth can say what they want in a certain number of characters.

never heard of lisa page before your quote. i watched yokonovanovitch during the hearings.

both examples need to get a grip on life. if trump tweets and they cry about it, or bring it up, they are adding interest AND value to 1000s of goofy azz prizzy tweets. :P

he doesn't even know who either of you are.


i'm not democrat, republican, independent. i'm me. who says, "f*ck every politician that walks the earth".

yet i'll get my son into politics. it's such a lazy and easy way to make money...literally, print your own money.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on December 02, 2019, 10:03:47 PM
Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page told the Daily Beast in an interview published Sunday night being the target of President Trump's wrath over the past two years was "like being punched in the gut."
My heart drops to my stomach when I realize he has tweeted about me again. The president of the United States is calling me names to the entire world. He's demeaning me and my career. It’s sickening."
She called Trump's attacks on her "very intimidating because he’s still the president of the United States,"
https://www.axios.com/lisa-page-daily-beast-trump-attacks-sickening-75b83eb4-f5f2-41c9-b817-9a6a7d686c68.html

Lisa page was confirmed to be involved in digging up dirt on Trump before the election. To top that off it was revealed last week through DOJ filings that not only was Lisa page having an affair with Peter Strzok but they were privately communicating concerning FBI related classified material using their personal cell phones. A violation of the FBI's security protocols. This information was released to the public in a motion to have Peter Strzok wrongful termination lawsuit against the FBI thrown out. The motion to dismiss the lawsuit was co-filed by Page and Strzok's boss himself. Shortly after being uncovered and fired, Both Page and Strzok wiped their phones. The DOJ is currently attempting to get about 5 months worth of texts they exchanged on their personal phones.

So not only is Lisa page a dumb hoe. She is a dumb hoe that put national security in jeopardy.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/peter-strzoks-wife-discovered-lisa-page-affair-on-his-phone-doj-reveals
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Baiter on December 03, 2019, 11:30:59 PM
It’s anything but a rhetorical question. I’ll ask again since you ignored my first round of questions - How was President Trump’s statement over Twitter any different than if he’d said that same thing to a reporter?  How would she even known during her testimony if Congressman Schiff hadn’t told her?  If Trump’s statement was intimidating (a conclusion I disagree with) then you have to accept that the one who actually relayed the message during her testimony to illicit a negative reaction was the one who actually carried out that intimidation, not Trump.  This is a silly charge, and had no traction or staying power outside of partisans who already hate Trump.

It doesn't matter how or where it was said, except that it was done in public and it was done to disparage someone actively testifying about him.  While it's important to note that Trump does behave like this with anyone that doesn't fall in line for him, he's especially active in twitter (and in the media) about those actively investigating or testifying about him, which is the situation here.  It's also a bit naive to assume that because someone brought up the tweet to her that she wouldn't have found out on her own. 

I'm only asserting it's a consistent pattern of behavior that has spanned years, even decades at this point... and hardly debatable.  If your real concern is whether or not it should be a charge, I could care less... there's more important fish to fry.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on December 05, 2019, 11:16:50 AM
so called "constitutional expert" and noted Trump hater Pamela Karlan who has repeatedly donated to the Clintons and Warren takes a shot at Donald Trump's son Barron Trump on the stand. Dems laugh about it.

Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: WannaTheater on December 06, 2019, 07:53:09 AM
Quote
takes a shot at Donald Trump's son Barron Trump
Are you kidding me?  She did nothing more than accurately state his name in a sentence.  I didn’t see you post when Trump disparaged greta Thunberg via tweet.

Quote
So you're basically wanting to impeach a president over a handful of people with less than credible records who have a gut feeling because you believe the president is less than credible. Got it.
Changing my prior response- He should be impeached because he abused his power for personal gain (conditioned congressionally approved funding and meeting to ukraine unless ukraine published they were investigating Biden).  Also because he does not recognize the checks and balances of our government- he refused, and ordered folks to refuse, to testify in a congressional hearing.  One could say he has systematically obstructed the congressional hearing process.  Key concepts from last two sentences: “abuse of power”,”obstruction”

What was one of the articles of impeachment that Clinton was found guilty of?
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: Don Panetta aka 404 on May 15, 2020, 08:30:35 PM
On Trump bribery allegations

“Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?”

YOVANOVITCH: No.

----------
Admitting the Obama White house coached her before her 2016 senate hearing.

“The first time you personally became aware of Burisma was actually when you were being prepared by the Obama State Department for your Senate confirmation hearings [in 2016], and this was in the form of practice questions and answers. This was your deposition and you testified that on this particular practice Q&A with the Obama State Department, it wasn’t just generally about Burisma and corruption, it was specifically about Hunter Biden and Burisma, is that correct?

YOVANOVITCH: Yes, it is.

hey remember the ukraine 'scandal'? remember our friend here Marie yovanovitch who was the American ambassador to the ukraine until trump fired her? turns out, she lied to congress during these impeachment hearings about her dealings with burisma according to declassified emails.

- Just a month before Trump took office, yovanovitch met directly with members of Burisma at the US Embassy.

-In an email on September 2016 one of yovanovitch's aides notified her that Burisma hired Blue Star Strategies to help rehabilitate their reputation. Blue star has extensive ties to the democratic party. this is also when burisma had finally admitted publicly that they had placed Hunter Biden on the board.

- In the fall of 2016 alone, yovanovitch had over 160 pages worth of correspondence with Burisma. Many of these documents reportedly show serious concern by Burisma that Donald trump was going to target the company for criminal charges.
Title: Re: Impeachment popcorn ...
Post by: deadlander on May 25, 2020, 10:13:42 AM
Fun reading this entire thread 5 month later. Dems won their 3 year quest to impeach the very bad orange man. What was the cost? Pelosi,Shift and Nadler have been exposed for the political hacks they are.  More people don’t believe what cnn, nyt and other media outlets say.   Now that Joe Biden is the most likely dnc candidate assuming he doesn’t succumb to dementia, COVID or slips and falls from the Canadian goose shit in his backyard in the next few months is it ok to look into his actions while he was serving as the scandal free Obama VP?  Is it ok to look into his sexual abuse claims? I’m old enough to remember to believe all women unless they accuse democrats.

Can we now look at his dealings with both the Ukraine and China and having his family gain financially from it?  Is it ok to weaponize the doj to spy on the opposition candidate?  Is it ok to be complicit to the FBI extorting Mike Flynn to plead guilty to protect his son so you can disrupt the presidency of the opposition? I assume it was all acceptable to the dems and main stream press (redundant) because Joe is their boy. 

Looking forward to the Joe vs Trump 2020 debates should be epic. I’m sure Joe will do well when he asks Trump to step outside so he can beat him up like his old foe popcorn or perhaps he will challenge him to a push up contest.  What happened to the dnc? When the best guy they can dig up to run against their worst enemy is poor old demented Joe Biden an out of touch white guy who has trouble reading the teleprompter. 

Are you not entertained?
Al