Impeachment

On a Facebook discussion about the impeachment with some Progressives, they state that is the Senate's job to whatever the House didn't because they want Trump out. I left the conversation quickly, because I knew there wasn't anything rational to follow up about. These guys are manager and executive level types of guys too.

One person said that if "the Republicans continued to cover up Trump's actions of asking for foreign intervention in this election, and didn't call witnesses" he and those he works with will "make life hell on Republican..." politicians as they seek reelection.

I didn't know this particular guy, so I looked up his profile.

His previous employer was Facebook and now he works for Google. That means these threats weren't meaningless. Big Tech will actively go against one US political party in order to advance the interests of the other. Make no mistake.

We know from interviews on-line with Google execs that they do that by censoring information they don't agree with and promoting information they do agree with. There isn't much room from truth and objectivity anymore. Even when both sides see the same facts that don't agree on them. This guy from Google was just one more brick of evidence to me that conflict will escalate before it calms down.
 
Guys. All Bolton has said or will say, is already shown in the call transcripts and the testimony he we have already heard.

There was some kind of quid pro quo discussion between Trump and Zelensky, but there is no reason to label it as Trump getting Ukraine to subvert a US election. The subject matter was all within scope for foreign aid policy and negotiation generally. That is why no one bats an eye at Biden having Ukraine fire the person who was investigating Burisma. Politicians are commonly corrupt and use their political position to make money or money for family and friends. It is a problem that needs to be solved with some kind of law or enforcement of law, like what we have with Ukraine.
 
Monahorns said:
Guys. All Bolton has said or will say, is already shown in the call transcripts and the testimony he we have already heard.
Click to expand...

That's why I'm not interested in what he has to say in his book. Whatever he has to add, is theater. I'm not into DC theater, the facts have been laid out. All this nonsense, is just an HR type issue / policy difference of opinion.
 
This quid pro quo is merely a real world example that the US doesn't give people Christmas gifts. The Dems know that.
 
Bolton, who may hold impeachment bombshell, has a history of settling scores

Excerpts:

“As a maligned whistleblower,” she went on, “I’ve learned firsthand the lengths Mr. Bolton will go to accomplish any goal he sets for himself. Truth flew out the window. Decency flew out the window. In his bid to smear me and promote the interests of his client, he went straight for the low road and stayed there.”

But even if the impeachment trial is an unprecedented affair, Bolton has been here many times before, at the center of a maelstrom that is in good part of his own making. He has had his integrity questioned, as well as his honesty and professionalism. And each time, he has somehow emerged eager for more.

Bolton was once famously described as a “kiss-up, kick-down sort of guy” by Carl Ford, a longtime intelligence official who had recently been a top deputy to Colin Powell, secretary of state to George W. Bush. Ford had served two tours in Vietnam, whereas Bolton had written in 1995 that he avoided service there because he had “no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy.” Later, Ford had served in the Central Intelligence Agency. He was, in other words, nothing like the do-good peaceniks whom Bolton despised and who despised Bolton right back. And yet there he was, warning that Bolton was a “serial abuser” who “goes out of his way to retaliate” against those who defy him.

His former boss returned the favor. “Let me just say from the outset that I don’t consider Bolton credible,” the outgoing President Bush said in 2008.

Bolton portrayed Libby’s sin as one of carelessness, not malevolence: “In the face of all of these demands, keeping every detail straight is impossible. I have myself been to meetings after which I could not remember what agency or Department most of the people worked for, or even why they were there. With classified information, it was frequently hard to know who was cleared to see what or what could be discussed with whom.”
 
That's offensive to choads. Romney is the bottom of the barrel politician. He is full of self importance and claims to be conservative when he is not. I hope McConnell punishes him in the senate. Hopefully Alexander doesn't side with this crap either.
 
I think I posted this same clip as Cipollone uses here
Watch til the end and check out the reaction from Senators - its only 3m long
 
Last edited:
New Quinnipiac poll:

Registered voters say 75–20% that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial

Support for witness testimony includes 49% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats, and 75% of independents.
 
Monahorns said:
Guys. All Bolton has said or will say, is already shown in the call transcripts and the testimony he we have already heard.

There was some kind of quid pro quo discussion between Trump and Zelensky, but there is no reason to label it as Trump getting Ukraine to subvert a US election. The subject matter was all within scope for foreign aid policy and negotiation generally. That is why no one bats an eye at Biden having Ukraine fire the person who was investigating Burisma. Politicians are commonly corrupt and use their political position to make money or money for family and friends. It is a problem that needs to be solved with some kind of law or enforcement of law, like what we have with Ukraine.
Click to expand...
So we have moved the goalposts? We’ve gone from “no quid pro quo” to “it’s ok because it’s foreign policy”.
 
bystander said:
This quid pro quo is merely a real world example that the US doesn't give people Christmas gifts. The Dems know that.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. However, it’s an announcement of an investigation into a political rival not an actual investigation into corruption. If that dog was going to hunt we’d be looking into the murder of an American citizen like khashogi or the Saudi who shot up a military base.
 
I find it interesting that the White House got access to this book on 12/30/19. A few days later we are attacking Iran. A country that Bolton is a chub to practice his regime change.
 
OUBubba said:
I agree with this. However, it’s an announcement of an investigation into a political rival not an actual investigation into corruption.
Click to expand...

The Bidens brought this upon themselves. If you pull this kind of nonsense in a country that has a reputation for corruption you're going to get an investigation. For the zillionth time, Bubba being one of several presidential candidates isn't a get out of jail free card. If you're such a believer in not being able to go after a political rival ask the 4 democrat senators in the Senate who are running for president to step down from the Senate trial. They are voting to take out a political rival by the name of Trump. Put your money where your mouth is. Tell them to step down. In all seriousness, Washington doesn't work the way you think it does.
 
Small world story -- The law firm representing Alexander Vindman and Fiona Hill is also the same firm representing Burisma -- go figure

EJ6nMQIW4AE-Kcq.jpg
 
Horn6721 said:
IMO the concern is Hunter gets subpoenaed to plead the 5th
Click to expand...

But Devon Archer might not. And he may be better witness anyway. He was a co-conspirator with Hunter. He was a Burisma board member. And he has already been charged with crimes. He is primed and ready to spill.
 
OUBubba said:
So we have moved the goalposts? We’ve gone from “no quid pro quo” to “it’s ok because it’s foreign policy”.
Click to expand...
Quid pro quo was used by Dems to sound nefarious. It all goes to intent. Intent to root corruption as it relates to foreign aid is not new. Frankly anyone who mentions quid pro quo at this point is someone who either hasn’t paid attention or being duplicitous.
 
LongestHorn said:
New Quinnipiac poll:

Registered voters say 75–20% that witnesses should be allowed to testify in the impeachment trial

Support for witness testimony includes 49% of Republicans, 95% of Democrats, and 75% of independents.
Click to expand...
Agree.

I opposed the whole idea of this impeachment. Utter waste of time and govt resources. So far, it’s nothing but political kabuki theatre. But now that we’re in the middle of the trial in the Senate, at least try to do it right. Give each side 4 witnesses of their choice (could be anyone they want to call—subpoena unwilling witnesses). 2 hours direct and 2 hours cross per witness.
 
I know I shouldn't be amazed that the Rs supposedly are in the majority in the Senate but are allowing tases so-called fitness negotiations.

Ridiculous. I don't care about McConnell et al being Statesmen. Screw the Dems. They were allowed to run amok in the House. I know...the Senate is the big boy body of Congress. Nonetheless, it's amazing how the Dems are constantly allowed to run things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top