Impeachment

Garmel said:
You left out the most important lines in the article. I wonder why. You'd make a fine addition to the House of Reps.

""Sondland replied nearly five hours later that he believed Taylor was "incorrect about President Trump's intentions."

"The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind. The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign. I suggest we stop the back and forth by text," Sondland said."
Click to expand...
Doesn't a 5 hour delay smell kind of funny to you? It's the text message equivalent of "these are not the droids you're looking for....call me".
 
Should we as US citizens want to know who in government is corrupt, how corrupt they are, and what corrupt things they have done?

If we don't know any of that, how can we truly vote our preference? If we only get to know what they want us to know, how can we even call the US a democracy (I know, I know a republic, same thing holds)?

If understanding the truth about politicians is a fundamental need of democracy, does it matter who is finding the truth and what their motivations are? I would rather receive the truth from someone who gets a personal benefit from it than have it withheld from me because making it public helps someone else in some other way.
 
Seattle Husker said:
Previously in the thread you stated there was no quid pro quo from Trump. Though Sondland tries to distance himself from the perception of any quid pro qui its clear that Taylor thinks thats what's being put to Ukraine and Zelensky. Any comment?
Click to expand...

The transcript didn't establish a quid pro quo. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. I saw Taylor's text. Simply asking about it doesn't make it so, and though being corrected on the matter helps Trump, the abrupt ending of the messaging thread is very suspicious. What we really need is for these guys and Giuliani (he brought it on himself) to testify and explain themselves. That won't be pretty.

And of course, ultimately we need to know what was actually presented to Ukraine. Was this about investigating corruption in general and election interference (which are fair game to raise even if they ultimately lead to Biden), or was Biden the actual target all along? That needs to be determined.

Seattle Husker said:
Did you also catch that Trump told GOP leadership he called at the urging of Perry regarding an LNG Plant? Yeah...that's a new excuse too as that topic was never mentioned in the Zelensky call.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't see that. I pretty much assume that anything Rick Perry is involved in is dirty. He was governor a ridiculous amount of time and proved himself to be sleazy on countless occasions. I doubt that working for Trump changed him for the better.

Seattle Husker said:
Now lets move to Trump's public Twitter requests to Ukraine and China to investigate Biden. Just because he makes public what was previously private does not mean its acceptable. As Romney sated it's "appalling" and certainly not a "joke" or "media troll" as Rubio laughably suggested. It's abuse of power in plain sight and cannot be separated from other initiatives with these countries, like China trade negotiations.
Click to expand...

For the most part, if he is saying it on Twitter, it's ill-advised.
 
Monahorns said:
Should we as US citizens want to know who in government is corrupt, how corrupt they are, and what corrupt things they have done?

If we don't know any of that, how can we truly vote our preference? If we only get to know what they want us to know, how can we even call the US a democracy (I know, I know a republic, same thing holds)?

If understanding the truth about politicians is a fundamental need of democracy, does it matter who is finding the truth and what their motivations are? I would rather receive the truth from someone who gets a personal benefit from it than have it withheld from me because making it public helps someone else in some other way.
Click to expand...
So you have an illusion that this is about getting to the truth by Trump & Co? They're trying to retrofit conspiracy theories about F'n Hillary. The only truth is in that transcript and I smell something wrong there as well. It's billed as a transcript. Until it's validated as a complete transcript I'm going to doubt it.

Senator King suggests at least 20 minutes are missing from Trump Ukraine call transcript
 
Joe Fan said:
Yeesh - dude stonewalled everyone
Ex post facto?

"Michael Atkinson, the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, acknowledged that his office secretly changed key whistleblower forms and rules in September, but refused to explain to lawmakers why those changes were backdated to August."​

IG Stonewalled Congress On Backdated Whistleblower Rule Changes
Click to expand...
There are way too many pics with cleavage serving as clickbait for that to be a valid source. Just sayin'....
 
Mr. Deez said:
The transcript didn't establish a quid pro quo. That doesn't mean there wasn't one. I saw Taylor's text. Simply asking about it doesn't make it so, and though being corrected on the matter helps Trump, the abrupt ending of the messaging thread is very suspicious. What we really need is for these guys and Giuliani (he brought it on himself) to testify and explain themselves. That won't be pretty.
Click to expand...
You know what's even more suspicious? The fact that the democrats have not released all of Volker's testimony. All we have seen is snippets.
 
Last edited:
If you ever watched The Good Wife cookies nabbed an old partner. Funny stuff.

My post was 1/2 tongue/cheek. That said, this is my work computer. I've never gone anywhere fishy. This is the seediest place I land. :|
 
LOL - they are going full Grand Inquisitor on this



654903.jpg
 
Garmel said:
If it's found out that Guilaini wasn't sent by the State Department what could you charge him with?
Click to expand...

How he got over there isn't what would get him into trouble. Anybody can go to Ukraine, and anybody can investigate Joe Biden in Ukraine. What can get him into trouble is if he collaborated with Trump to break the law while in Ukraine. For example, if he was going to Ukraine as a representative of Trump to circumvent official US policy or to drive a covert nefarious policy, that would and should get him into trouble.

Suppose he was secretly going to Ukrainian officials and saying something along the lines of, "The Administration officially says it's going to withhold aid until you address corruption and Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 election, but Trump has directed me to inform you that what he really expects is for you to investigate Joe Biden and his son and that the aid is actually conditional upon this." That is a quid pro quo with taxpayer dollars to enlist a foreign government to pursue a political opponent rather than to promote US policy. If that occurred, then Giuliani may be in trouble. Trump would definitely be removed. And if a Democrat defeats Pence, Trump would likely go to jail.
 
OUBubba said:
So you have an illusion that this is about getting to the truth by Trump & Co? They're trying to retrofit conspiracy theories about F'n Hillary.
Click to expand...

Barry, just something to ponder during the refractory periods. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself on that.) Is it possible for the Administration to investigate Biden in an acceptable way? If he had directed the Justice Department and State Department to do it on their own instead of enlisting Slimy Rudy, wouldn't the complaint be that he's using government resources to attack a political opponent much like they complained about Nixon using the IRS to target political opponents or much like the Right often complains that Obama used the IRS to target conservative groups?

I know what Democrats would say. "But Biden didn't do anything!" "There's no evidence of corruption!" Guess who else said that? Trump and his supporters (including many here) and frankly, every politician who has ever been put under investigation for wrongdoing, and most of them were just as right (or wrong) as Biden supporters are now. The "no evidence" charge is putting a very conclusory cart before the horse, and to be honest, 90 percent of the people making that claim (including journalists) don't even know what the word "evidence" means. Investigations are launched to find evidence. What prompts them to begin is reasonable suspicion of some kind of wrongdoing.

I may not care much about Trump, but I do care about precedent and unintended consequences and incentives. One of the reasons the refusal to remove Clinton bothered me is that it set a horrible precedent. At the time that was happening the same people who are now saying Trump doesn't have to have broken the law to be impeached were saying Clinton shouldn't be impeached because it's not illegal to have an intern bobbing your knob in the Oval Office and then using your power as President to give said intern a federal job to entice her to shut up about it. Then when he was caught committing a crime to cover it up and to corrupt a civil trial, those same people were saying that even a felony isn't necessarily enough to impeach.

That was 20 years ago and we moved on, but precedents were set. Specifically, there is nothing sexual a President can do to warrant removal no matter how seedy and embarrassing it is so long as it isn't illegal. Furthermore, a President cannot be removed for perjury. When he takes an oath to tell the truth in court, in a deposition, etc., he can say whatever the hell he wants, and it's all OK. Both of those precedents are hideous, but that's where we are.

Suppose we do impeach Trump just because he wanted Biden investigated (rather than based on procedure). Another set of precedents and incentives will be set. First, anyone who has done something illegal or improper can simply decide to run for President, and he or she effectively gets immunity from prosecution if the current President is from the opposing party. Second, any kind of dirty business interest (foreign or domestic) will go out of their way to hire family members of potential presidential candidates. The value on the Hunter Bidens of the world will go way up. Why? Because those business interests will know that they are effectively buying immunity when the opposing party is in power. If Trump gets tossed on that basis, will Hunter Biden be worth $50K per month? Hell no. He'll be worth $5M per month.

I'm not bringing this up out of any emotional or political connection to Trump. I didn't vote for him, and frankly, if he left office, the GOP would probably be better off in the long term. Furthermore, from a personal standpoint, if Trump is the nominee in 2020, I could still be convinced to vote third party like I was in 2016. If Pence is the nominee, that is out of the question. However, the people pushing to remove him need to be thinking about what they're really doing and need to know that the bases for removal matter a lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top