Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Lindsay Graham refusing to even read the transcripts because "the process The U.S. Constitution is BS"

 

🙄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, KJP said:
Making the rounds on the interwebs today....

 

 

Not trying to talk about Epstein, but why in the world are you linking to James O'Keefe for anything?!  Please don't give him attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, while KJP may feel otherwise, for now, the "Clinton didn't kill Epstein, Trump did!" talk should go on the Crazy Conspiracies thread along with the "Clinton killed Epstein!" talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, your assumption of what I think is wrong. I think both Clinton and Trump had means and motive, but only one had the opportunity.

 

Back to documented crimes....

 

 


"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."-Voltaire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Q: And when you say that, this was the first time I heard that the security assistance—not just the White House meeting—was conditioned on the investigation, when you talk about conditioned, did you mean that if they didn’t do this, the investigations, they weren’t going to get that, the meeting and the military assistance?

 

A: That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation.

 

Q: So if they don’t do this, they are not going to get that was your understanding?

 

A: Yes, sir.

 

Bill Taylor confirms military aid and White House meeting were contingent on the Ukrainians committing to a bogus investigation of Hunter Biden.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. Ambassador Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations. In fact, Ambassador Sondland said everything was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance.

 

Only question now is will Republicans read the transcripts they said should be made public.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Only question now is will Republicans read the transcripts they said should be made public.

They should follow Donnie's advice and "Read the Transcript"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^Hopefully the GOP in the House do. As part of the jury in the Senate, all this will be presented to Lindsay in understandable chunks.  Besides, we will have plenty of open testimony next week.  His spine is so contorted and must be in the shape of a pretzel by now that he has altered all his positions that he held even a few weeks ago so drastically in order to be trumps golden boy in the senate.  

 

 

Edited by audidave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

nothing to see here

 

 

I think this is what @Jimmy Skinner meant above, though:

 

19 hours ago, Jimmy Skinner said:

Does the whistleblower's name matter anymore? ...so many people have corroborated the story

 

If it was just that guy, it wouldn't have moved the needle on public opinion (or possible wavering Republican Senators) at all.  If it was just that guy, it would never have been enough to flip Sondland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

at least they can't accuse Trump of doing something "illegal" in this case. I mean, if it's being reported in a media source as reputable as NPR, it must be true. 😏

 

 

Please comment on this U.S. code section and Trump's multiple instances of violating it.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Please comment on this U.S. code section and Trump's multiple instances of violating it.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

 

EVD has never heard of Cornell so your link is fake news. Now if you’re talking Brietbart or the NY Post, boy does he have some articles for you!

Edited by stpats44113

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Please comment on this U.S. code section and Trump's multiple instances of violating it.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121

 

oh my gosh, I'd love to but I'm not a lawyer and can barely begin to understand the many dialects of legalese. No wonder those people are so hated--lol  (just kidding, yabo!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, eastvillagedon said:

 

oh my gosh, I'd love to but I'm not a lawyer and can barely begin to understand the many dialects of legalese. No wonder those people are so hated--lol  (just kidding, yabo!)

 

None taken - I learn to accept it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gramarye said:

 

I think this is what @Jimmy Skinner meant above, though:

 

 

If it was just that guy, it wouldn't have moved the needle on public opinion (or possible wavering Republican Senators) at all.  If it was just that guy, it would never have been enough to flip Sondland.

 

It's interesting to know the name because it sheds light on the real motivation behind the alleged whistleblowing (which in reality is just hearsay)

 

Ultimately, none of this really matters because we've all read the transcript and it's clear that nothing illegal was uttered during the call. The only significance of the "impeachment" is how it will impact public opinion heading into the 2020 election. It might rile up the Democrats' base because it means the Dems are "doing something" about Trump. Or, it could backfire when, after a year, the process has proven fruitless. The Democrats better hope it's the former - because either way, this is riling up Trump's base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, eastvillagedon said:

nothing to see here

 

 

I know it shouldn't, but it still shocks me the lengths to which Republicans will go to cater to dear leader.  Protecting whistleblowers was never a partisan issue until President Mashed Potato brain entered the office.  I mean, Republicans understand how critical it is to our democracy to protect those that point out illegal or unethical behavior in office, but in this particular case they just don't seem to care.

 

Because... judges?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

It's interesting to know the name because it sheds light on the real motivation behind the alleged whistleblowing (which in reality is just hearsay)

 

Ultimately, none of this really matters because we've all read the transcript and it's clear that nothing illegal was uttered during the call. The only significance of the "impeachment" is how it will impact public opinion heading into the 2020 election. It might rile up the Democrats' base because it means the Dems are "doing something" about Trump. Or, it could backfire when, after a year, the process has proven fruitless. The Democrats better hope it's the former - because either way, this is riling up Trump's base.


FOUR diplomats have confirmed the whistleblower’s story. As stated upstream with someone with a little more grip on present day reality is that it doesn’t matter who the whistleblower was at this point. Four diplomats have corroborated his story. Good to fire up the 20% that still stand with him. His base shrinks by the day. I know of eight friends that voted for him and not one of them will do again. Most were the anti Hillary type and thought how could he be worse. Well, they all got their answer I guess. Good luck staying in the Titanic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what the GOP did to the whistleblower is dispicacable. They find fault in everything except the obvious in dear leader.  But they kind of botched getting this information out.  The timing is terrible.  Next week once public testimony starts everyone will forget about the whistleblower. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Any normal person would forget about the whistle blower.  However if they have no foot to stand on, that is all they have.  It is what trump will use to victimize himself by constantly talking about the WB like the person is hillary’s personal deep state mole. So instead of “what about hillary’s emails” it will be “what about the whistle blower!?!?”

  Fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, stpats44113 said:


FOUR diplomats have confirmed the whistleblower’s story. As stated upstream with someone with a little more grip on present day reality is that it doesn’t matter who the whistleblower was at this point. Four diplomats have corroborated his story. Good to fire up the 20% that still stand with him. His base shrinks by the day. I know of eight friends that voted for him and not one of them will do again. Most were the anti Hillary type and thought how could he be worse. Well, they all got their answer I guess. Good luck staying in the Titanic.

 

Step back and take a look at the bigger picture here - few things in life are guaranteed, but among them is the fact that Trump will not be removed from office. Should the House impeach, there's zero chance that 2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate will determine what Trump said on that call was illegal (primarily because it wasn't, but that is ultimately irrelevant). With that in mind, the "impeachment" is nothing but spectacle. The only significance is the constantly adapting aura and how it will impact voter turnout and swing votes in a few key states. The outing of the extremely questionable whistle-blower helped to shift the trend of that adapting aura in Trump's favor. It gives credence to the claim that the entire "impeachment" process is nothing but a political ploy to turn the tide of the 2020 election in favor of the DNC. The whole thing seems like a setup - much like Mueller's discredited "Russia" conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a spectacle (heck, even Republicans have complained about it being too secretive and Pelosi didn't want to do this because of the optics) and I'm sure it won't end with him being removed, but I personally think it is important a president with a list of unethical activities longer than the last 6 presidents combined leave office in 2021 with the word "impeached" dragging behind him.  If we deem this behavior acceptable simply because 53 congresspeople won't do their jobs, we might as well give every future presidency to the guy with the most money and business connections and let them be de-facto kings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

Step back and take a look at the bigger picture here - few things in life are guaranteed, but among them is the fact that Trump will not be removed from office. Should the House impeach, there's zero chance that 2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate will determine what Trump said on that call was illegal (primarily because it wasn't, but that is ultimately irrelevant). With that in mind, the "impeachment" is nothing but spectacle. The only significance is the constantly adapting aura and how it will impact voter turnout and swing votes in a few key states. The outing of the extremely questionable whistle-blower helped to shift the trend of that adapting aura in Trump's favor. It gives credence to the claim that the entire "impeachment" process is nothing but a political ploy to turn the tide of the 2020 election in favor of the DNC. The whole thing seems like a setup - much like Mueller's discredited "Russia" conspiracy theory.

 

james comey lol GIF by Mashable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ram23 said:

Ultimately, none of this really matters because we've all read the transcript and it's clear that nothing illegal was uttered during the call. 

 

If you've read any of the testimony, you would know it was much more than a single phone call.  It was a coordinated effort to pressure Zelensky

 

Attorney General Declined Trump Request to Declare Nothing Illegal in Ukraine Call  https://nyti.ms/33oPtEf

President Trump asked Attorney General William P. Barr to hold a news conference stating that no laws were broken in his call with Ukraine’s president. Mr. Barr declined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ram23 said:

 

Step back and take a look at the bigger picture here - few things in life are guaranteed, but among them is the fact that Trump will not be removed from office. Should the House impeach, there's zero chance that 2/3 of the Republican controlled Senate will determine what Trump said on that call was illegal (primarily because it wasn't, but that is ultimately irrelevant). With that in mind, the "impeachment" is nothing but spectacle. The only significance is the constantly adapting aura and how it will impact voter turnout and swing votes in a few key states. The outing of the extremely questionable whistle-blower helped to shift the trend of that adapting aura in Trump's favor. It gives credence to the claim that the entire "impeachment" process is nothing but a political ploy to turn the tide of the 2020 election in favor of the DNC. The whole thing seems like a setup - much like Mueller's discredited "Russia" conspiracy theory.

 

Just speaking pragmatically - when does withholding aid to an ally on the precondition that they investigate a political rival become illegal... 

 

Because when this is President (Insert Dem) and they're doing the same thing to Israel.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Just speaking pragmatically - when does withholding aid to an ally on the precondition that they investigate a political rival become illegal... 

 

Because when this is President (Insert Dem) and they're doing the same thing to Israel.... 

 

Honestly, this is one of the strongest arguments that Congress should draw a line here and enforce it to the utmost.  But you'd expect President Ilhan Omar to have a ready response about how it's different because Israel is the worst country ever (except for maybe the U.S.).

 

Also, Israel would probably put a stick in the eye of the demand by investigating the rival in question and then completely clearing him/her in a week or something like that.  Israel could get away with something like that; it doesn't have a vastly more populous and militarily superior enemy knocking on its door.  (Heck, behind closed doors, it wouldn't surprise me if even Saudi Arabia is a lot closer to recognizing Israel than people think, and if that happens, the rest of the Arab League probably falls like dominoes.  At that point, the case for military aid to Israel becomes a lot weaker even to those of us who don't share Omar's particular notions about the moral status of the Palestinians.)

 

However, remember that impeachment is fundamentally political, notwithstanding the "high crimes and misdemeanors" language in the Constitution.  If it were an "ordinary" criminal proceeding, it wouldn't be committed to the most political of the branches.  The House doesn't suddenly turn into a grand jury when considering articles of impeachment, and the Senate doesn't suddenly turn into a petit jury when trying the case.  After all, the Senate also fills the role of prosecutor in this analogy, and you know very well how the regular judicial system would react if a prosecutor wants to appoint himself as one of the jurors.  In fact, notwithstanding that the chief justice "presides" over impeachment trials, I'm 99% sure he doesn't even rule on evidence, let alone is there any chance for a directed verdict (or an appeal).  The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner.  That's a recipe for an inherently politicized trial, which is why it is forbidden by the Constitution in all other circumstances, but it's mandated in impeachment--the Constitution recognizes that the impeachment of a sitting president is inherently political and doesn't try to hide that with a judicial veneer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Honestly, this is one of the strongest arguments that Congress should draw a line here and enforce it to the utmost.  But you'd expect President Ilhan Omar to have a ready response about how it's different because Israel is the worst country ever (except for maybe the U.S.).

 

Ilhan Omar was not born in the U.S. and, therefore, cannot be President barring an amendment to the Constitution stating refugees are eligible for the office.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DarkandStormy said:

 

Ilhan Omar was not born in the U.S. and, therefore, cannot be President barring an amendment to the Constitution stating refugees are eligible for the office.

 

Ummm excuse me but a couple people on here told me Obama was born in Kenya and like ... he was totally President so you're wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, YABO713 said:

Ummm excuse me but a couple people on here told me Obama was born in Kenya and like ... he was totally President so you're wrong. 

 

Not long until we hear these attacks coming from Trump:

Biden? Born in Ukraine.

Sanders? Born in Russia.

Warren? Born in Native America.

Buttigieg?  Born in Finland.

Harris? Born in Jamaica / ****-hole.

 

"They're all not Americans!"


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

 

Ummm excuse me but a couple people on here told me Obama was born in Kenya and like ... he was totally President so you're wrong. 

I'm still waiting on Trump's investigators to come back with some information about this. 

 

"we never say the long form (whatever that is) birth certificate."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

 

 

The House doesn't suddenly turn into a grand jury when considering articles of impeachment, and the Senate doesn't suddenly turn into a petit jury when trying the case.  After all, the Senate also fills the role of prosecutor in this analogy, and you know very well how the regular judicial system would react if a prosecutor wants to appoint himself as one of the jurors.  In fact, notwithstanding that the chief justice "presides" over impeachment trials, I'm 99% sure he doesn't even rule on evidence, let alone is there any chance for a directed verdict (or an appeal).  The Senate is judge, jury, and executioner.  That's a recipe for an inherently politicized trial, which is why it is forbidden by the Constitution in all other circumstances, but it's mandated in impeachment--the Constitution recognizes that the impeachment of a sitting president is inherently political and doesn't try to hide that with a judicial veneer.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.  From my understanding, the judge is the chief justice and the jury is the senate in impeachment hearings.  Are you trying to make up some fantasy about how the constitution would change radically in a President Ilhan regime?

  We are talking extortion by the president and he basically admitted that is how he runs his foreign policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, freefourur said:

I think what the GOP did to the whistleblower is dispicacable. They find fault in everything except the obvious in dear leader.  But they kind of botched getting this information out.  The timing is terrible.  Next week once public testimony starts everyone will forget about the whistleblower. 

The point is to send a message to anyone thinking about whistleblowing; shut up or we’ll do to you what we’re doing to him

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...