LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Return the money to whom?
Impeachment
- Thread starter mchammer
- Start date
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Nothing to see here. Let's talk about why Oprah never got married or the asteroid that might hit the Earth in 70 years. More pressing matters for sure.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
He knows that Parnas posted a pictures of himself with Trump and in the a Roosevelt room in May.
Btw- these 2 gentlemen ate lunch at Trump International Hotel with Rudy Guiliani just a few hours before getting picked up at the airport.
Get ready for Trump to throw Guiliani under the bus. I can't wait for the quote "I barely know Rudy Guliani" from Trump.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
How many time do you believe POTUS met them? And Don Jr.?
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I've little doubt that Trump doesn't know them personally. He certainly knows what Guiliani was doing and they were assisting him. Trump will rue the moment he didn't listen to advice to distance himself from Guiliani months ago. It may ultimately lead to his undoing.
Don Jr? I doubt he remembers what he had for lunch yesterday. Talk about a guy living off his Dad's name.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
This is going to put the Trump Republicans in a serious bind. How do you claim to care about corruption then defend your own party over this level of seediness?
Which "whataboutism" do you think they'll fall back on? The Biden angle never grew legs.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Oh that’s easy.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Oh that’s easy.
I already feel sorry for the DOJ that is about to get smeared again as "deep state". We'll get a litany of half-true posts and memes from JoeFan about Dems and mchammer will spit conspiracy theories. Heck, the Manafort framing posts might be reusable by simply changing the names.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
What it has to do with impeachment is that she flippantly called for a foreign country to pursue Trump. Hillary is a player on the Left. Her pronouncements still carry weight in the minds of many people. Just like Al Gore. They flavor and season the political environment. But the Left covers for her.
I found it very interesting that Ellen DeGeneres was attacked for sitting next to George Bush (Michelle Obama has publicly hugged him in a very friendly and affectionate manner. Mot romantically; just in a dear friend manner). People on the Left attacked her for being civil to the man who they blame for the Iraq War. Yet Congress (in their Constitutional role) voted for the resolution and Hillary voted for it too. CRICKETS from the Left until Obama ripped her in the 2008 primary for it. Later all was forgiven and forgotten when she became the candidate for President. For some reason her vote didn't matter though Bush is considered a war criminal by the same people on the Left who voted for Hillary. And now DeGeneres is ripped. Memories are long, but quite selective it seems. Hillary is able to slide by because the Left won't attack her on this because it is inconvenient to the impeachment/coup campaign.
The fact is that Bill Clinton, Al Gore and many other prominent Democrats brought up the notion of Hussein having WMD time and time again back in the day and these types of speeches and comments flavor and season the minds of the American people. When someone says something, do they mean it or not? What does Hillary mean whenever she opens her mouth? Is it what she says or is it just something for the moment?
It's obvious you wanted her to be President. Maybe it was because she wasn't Trump but I believe you would never vote for a Republican even if they were the most eloquent thoughtful Conservative out there. In other words, not a loudmouth a-hole like Trump. But that is not policy. That is personality.
Did she (Hillary) or did she not openly call for the Chinese to investigate Trump? The attempt at nuance (she is not President; she lost etc.) means nothing. She is worshiped by the left-wingers on The View. She is considered to be a left-wing and feminist icon. When she speaks people listen.
And she said what she said. Guess it doesn't matter...
Ok, I laughed.
@Seattle Husker
I think you mentioned earlier that I like to quote or cite fringe left-wing candidates as if they are mainstream. Beto was one of the one's you mentioned. I think his failure as a POTUS candidate does not diminish his impact and influence. He challenged Ted Cruz to the end. He came very close to winning. And as a Senator from the state of Texas, he would suddenly have had a huge platform for his agenda. He is very powerful in my book. He is a rock star in El Paso and Austin. I believe (as Mr. Deez. has surmised) that white suburbanites have fallen under the spell of virtue signaling and Beto is an expert at it. He will continue to gain support from those who wish to believe they are good people. They will ignore Constitutional issues and an all powerful federal government ruled by people whose judgment will over-ride the law.
I think you mentioned earlier that I like to quote or cite fringe left-wing candidates as if they are mainstream. Beto was one of the one's you mentioned. I think his failure as a POTUS candidate does not diminish his impact and influence. He challenged Ted Cruz to the end. He came very close to winning. And as a Senator from the state of Texas, he would suddenly have had a huge platform for his agenda. He is very powerful in my book. He is a rock star in El Paso and Austin. I believe (as Mr. Deez. has surmised) that white suburbanites have fallen under the spell of virtue signaling and Beto is an expert at it. He will continue to gain support from those who wish to believe they are good people. They will ignore Constitutional issues and an all powerful federal government ruled by people whose judgment will over-ride the law.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
If you're looking for me to say HRC's comment wasn't right I'll say it again. She needs to go away. Enjoy retirement, grandchildren and wait to read the history books to feed any narcissistic tendencies. I can't state it in any more plain terms. Your soliloquy on her comment and silence on a sitting POTUS secretly and publicly pushing for politically motivated investigations, let alone when Trump asked Russia for HRC's emails, is transparently biased and hypocritical. In both scenarios by Trump (as a candidate and POTUS) he had immensely more power and a larger platform yet you are concerned about a comment by a has been on a late night talk show.
Let me point to language that may resonate with you more. Matthew 7:5 from the bible.
I was a Reagan Republican. My first voter registration before shifting to Independent was Republican Party. I briefly shifted to Democrat in 2007-2008 to participate in their Washington State caucuses then I returned to Independent. I voted for Bush Sr. in my first election. I nearly voted for Bush Jr vs Gore (loathed Tipper Gore). This Republican party is a shell of itself. I would never vote for a Republican for a National office but have and do vote for State and local Republicans depending on their platform. Strong consideration was given to voting for Gary Johnson in 2016 but my calculation was it was too risky to send a message to HRC if it remotely meant resulting in Trump staining the Whitehouse with his occupancy.
I am pointing out the hypocrisy of the Left which I believe to be at an all-time high. I am commenting that the outrage from the Left is politically motivated and lacking in sincerity. I am commenting that they have never accepted Trump's victory and have been wanting to remove him from day one. I believe that 100%.
That is not a defense of Trump. It is an all out attack on the despicable nature of left-wing politics.
That's a good quote. I have many faults. Thanks for the reminder.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Politics is all about hypocrisy. Look no further than the stances older politicians take on the current impeachment. As both JF and LH have shown, the stances of Graham, McConnell, Schumer etc. are the exact inverse of what they were in 1999. That's driven by the desire for power, hopefully with noble policy intentions but that's debatable.
If hypocrisy is your concern I'd suggest focusing on both sides because it's pervasive. You can't rail on "the left" for not railing on HRCs comments without doing the same for conservatives for Trumps comments which are being defended over and over on this message board.
It's true there is hypocrisy on both sides. But impeaching Trump and dragging the country through this mess for the past three years is hypocrisy in action. Speeches are one thing and I feel they can be very powerful when repeated constantly by iconic politicians and the media, but the removal of a President and attacking a Supreme Court justice is far-reaching.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Back to impeachment inquiry news...
Former Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovich is testifying in a closed door session today. She was the Ambassador that Trump recalled early (a few months before her scheduled tour end) and mentioned directly on his call with Zelensky claiming she's "going to go through some things."
In yesterdays disclosed indictment we learned that Guiliani's business associates, Parnas and Fruman, lobbied for her removal on behalf of an unnamed Ukrainian politician. Aside from the campaign finance violation allegations, they met with "Congressman-1" to push for Yovanovich's removal as well as allegedly funneling campaign contributions to said Congressman. The conjecture about the identity of "Congressman-1" is Pete Sessions. Sessions was a public critic of Yovanovich before and after her removal. He's also been a vocal Trump supporter around the Zelensky call. Of course, all of this occured before he was potentially tied to Parnas and Fruman.
Former Ukraine Ambassador Yovanovich is testifying in a closed door session today. She was the Ambassador that Trump recalled early (a few months before her scheduled tour end) and mentioned directly on his call with Zelensky claiming she's "going to go through some things."
In yesterdays disclosed indictment we learned that Guiliani's business associates, Parnas and Fruman, lobbied for her removal on behalf of an unnamed Ukrainian politician. Aside from the campaign finance violation allegations, they met with "Congressman-1" to push for Yovanovich's removal as well as allegedly funneling campaign contributions to said Congressman. The conjecture about the identity of "Congressman-1" is Pete Sessions. Sessions was a public critic of Yovanovich before and after her removal. He's also been a vocal Trump supporter around the Zelensky call. Of course, all of this occured before he was potentially tied to Parnas and Fruman.
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Joe Fan
10,000+ Posts
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Speeches are one thing but if the evidence shows Trump used his office to pressure a foreign power for political purposes than that is absolutely impeachable, IMHO. So far, it looks very bad for Trump.
Keep in mind, I didn't cheerlead impeachment after the Mueller report. I accepted Mueller's Part 1 conclusion. Though many unethical acts by the Trump campaign (the Trump Tower meeting, the blatantly corrupt Manafort, Papadopoulos boast) there was no evidence of Trump's involvement. Part 2 was very concerning because Trump clearly attempted to obstruct the investigation but still the best option was to win in 2020 for Democrats.
This is different. This is a line no POTUS has or should cross. As evidence grows of Trump's corruption of our political process that's crossing a line that should be a bi-partisan revulsion. Alas, the dislike of "the left" is so great that to many on the right there is no line their candidate can cross that might provoke them to admit this is wrong. The left was the same during the Clinton impeachment. I was one of them that didn't feel a lie to acmvoid exposing marriage infidelity warranted impeachment. Regrettfully, my views were likely colored by partisanship. The stakes are so much greater now. Rather than catching a POTUS in a lie about an abhorrent personal matter, Trump's alleged corruption strikes at the heart of our Democracy.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
1) Obama and Biden apparently interfered in Ukrainian internal affairs with the pressure they applied concerning corruption.
2) Trump asked about corruption in our own country albeit a political opponent.
Which corruption concerns you most: Theirs or ours?
"...if the evidence shows Trump used his office to pressure a foreign power for political purposes than that is absolutely impeachable, IMHO."
I wouldn't like that either if that is the case.
2) Trump asked about corruption in our own country albeit a political opponent.
Which corruption concerns you most: Theirs or ours?
"...if the evidence shows Trump used his office to pressure a foreign power for political purposes than that is absolutely impeachable, IMHO."
I wouldn't like that either if that is the case.
Last edited:
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
# 1 is Diplomatic relations, #2 is a corrup political tactic. I can't state it any more clearly.
If Trump and surrogates privately and publicly railed on corruption and curbing it I'd have no issue. They didn't. They focused on politically motivated investigations then tried to hide under the more defensible "corruption" after getting caught. In fact, it's the direct opposite of fighting corruption but rather encouraging it. Based on public information from texts, the US rep in Ukraine (Taylor) recognized it and the Ukraine authorities who refused the language being pushed by Volker/Sondland recognized it.
Not only is that defense disingenuous but corrupt. In any other era or administration this activity would be universally panned but our tribal roots have now grown so deep that reality can't shine through.
Now, if information comes out that Obama and Biden were pushing to stop/start politically motivated investigations I'd equally rail on them. That hasn't presented itself and is in fact just the opposite. The Hunter Biden connection to Burisma is absolutely unethical. I'd support laws be put in place that limit POTUS and VPOTUS family connections in International businesses. That's not in place though which allow Don Jr to make $millions in India and Ivanka to be granted 12 trademarks in China days before trade negotiations with the country. Recognizing that is "whataboutism" none of this activity is ethically acceptable but is legal.
Last edited:
Yes... a huge problem. Winner take all. SCOTUS nominations. That's all that matters it seems.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-HOGS *
Sat, Nov 16 • 11:00 AM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Senate Leader vote
- Started by BrntOrngStmpeDe
- Replies: 22
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
