Impeachment

[bystander]

A Democracy is preferred when you lose the electoral college vote. It's not so convenient when the idiots out number you or if the majority uses tyranny to oppress the minority.

 

[Joe Fan]

Eric Ciaramella --
- Registered Democrat
- Worked for Obama
- Worked with Biden
- Worked for CIA Director John Brennan
- Vocal critic of Trump
- Helped initiate the Russia “collusion” investigation hoax

So it sounds like all the DC media knew who this guy was. It was an "open secret."

If so, it means they also already knew all of his biases and connections to the opposition. Yet they covered it up. They just wanted to keep keep the impeachment train rolling. Pretty despicable.

 

[Joe Fan]

A Democracy is preferred when you lose the electoral college vote. It's not so convenient when the idiots out number you or if the majority uses tyranny to oppress the minority.

good point -- bit I would still like to see poll results on this

 

[Joe Fan]

So it sounds like all the DC media knew who this guy was. It was an "open secret."
If so, it means they also already knew all of his biases and connections to the opposition. Yet they covered it up. They just wanted to keep keep the impeachment train rolling. Pretty despicable.

Furthermore, there is apparently some reason to believe that this guy, Eric Ciaramella, may have also have been the mysterious "Charlie," who was referred to by Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in their sexting, but who is yet unidentified.

On the next page of the memo, they refer to "the CI guy in the White House"

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[mchammer]

Apparently the Vindman guy is an Obama-loving globalist:

 

[Horn6721]

but not surprised.
I wish this could get some traction

 

[Seattle Husker]

Apparently the Vindman guy is an Obama-loving globalist:

Lol! Hickman retweeted the Grumpy Mizfit tweet. He's a "Q" believer. Not sure I'd hitch my wagon to him but to each their own.

 

[Joe Fan]

but not surprised.
I wish this could get some traction

This is why they ran him out there in full uniform - peacocking a bit for the cameras before going down to Schiff's basement
They think certain people are unassailable - which is one reason they loved Obama so much (if you criticized him, for anything, you were a racist)
Greta (only a pedofile would criticize her)
Similar theory here - he is a decorated American hero

 

[LongestHorn]

Lol! Hickman retweeted the Grumpy Mizfit tweet. He's a "Q" believer. Not sure I'd hitch my wagon to him but to each their own.

Q Believers are on this board. What say you?

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Q Believers are on this board. What say you?

I believe he was a fictional character.

 

[LongestHorn]

Do it. Please.

 

[Joe Fan]

Apparently the Vindman guy is an Obama-loving globalist:

Here is an article about his testimony
Vindman's testimony amounted to little more than whining that the duly elected Commander-in-Chief ignored the policy opinions of an unelected staffer.

Alex Vindman’s Impeachment Testimony Rested On His Personal Opinions

 

[mchammer]

Author: John Lucas is a practicing attorney in Tennessee who has successfully argued before the U. S. Supreme Court. Before entering law school at the University of Texas, he served in the Army Special Forces as an enlisted and then graduated from the U. S. Military Academy at West Point in 1969. He is an Army Ranger and fought in Vietnam as an infantry platoon leader. He is married with four children.

 

[mchammer]

Do it. Please.

You realize you have zero credibility when it comes to Trump and politics.

 

[mchammer]

I thought working with other governments on political matters was a no no?

A CIA officer who filed a second-hand whistleblower complaint against President Trump has gotten cold feet about testifying after revelations emerged that he worked with Joe Biden, former CIA Director John Brennan, and a DNC operative who sought dirt on President Trump from officials in Ukraine's former government.

 

[Mr. Deez]

If he held up aid authorized by Congress and already in the payment pipeline along with a White House visit as leverage to get the Ukrainian President to announce on CNN that he was investigating Bursima and Hunter Biden and then that is much more substantial than anything done by Nixon or Clinton.

Barry, let me take issue with you on this, and I'll explain my rationale. You can choose to accept it or not, but it is principled. Let's presume the worst case scenario on Trump. Let's assume that he never gave a crap about Ukrainian corruption and that the real motivator on holding up the foreign aid was getting at Joe Biden, and let's assume that this can be established with absolutely conclusive evidence. Is it grounds for removal and totally inappropriate? Absolutely. Using foreign aid for that kind of baldly political purpose can't be tolerated. It's a gross abuse of power. However, what are the implications of doing that? At worst, a guy who certainly had a very suspicious, even if not illegal, arrangement with a dirty Ukrainian gas company gets investigated and might look bad in an election year.

Though Democrats downplayed it at the time when it was politically convenient, perjury is a big deal. The entire justice system (civil and criminal) is dependent on people taking an oath and having that mean something. Everyday, we take people's life, liberty, and property in reliance on witnesses taking the stand and telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sometimes, the word of that witness is the only thing upon which we rely, even in death penalty cases. It is literally a matter of life and death, and the system collapses if we don't take it seriously. In its place, we get routine injustice, and in the case of death penalty cases, horrific injustice.

I'm not naive. I know that witnesses sometimes lie under oath, and most of the time, they get away with it. However, the deterrent comes from the fact that if you are caught, the consequences are severe. When the President of the United States is caught red-handed as Clinton was, and we just blow it off, it undermines the impact of that deterrent in a very high profile way. That's why it's a big deal and why he should have been tossed, and that's why it's arguably more consequential than what Trump may have done. That doesn't diminish what Trump may have done. He should still go if guilty, but a little perspective is in order.

 

[mb227]

You realize you have zero credibility when it comes to Trump and politics.

With regard to that particular poster, based upon their non-WestMall postings, you could have just stopped after 'credibility.'

 

[ShAArk92]

So do you think many people get $600,000 per year board positions in a foreign country with no industry experience and a known drug use past?

I'm WAY late to this party ... but to answer this question. YES.

This talking point in the GOP criticism of Hunter Biden is that red herring taking a beating ... where is that thing?

There are unqualified BODs all over the place. it's clear HOW Hunter Biden obtained (didn't earn ... possibly awarded) this position, and the fact that Pops was the current VPOTUS is troubling (hello public servant) ... but ranting about BODs being unqualified in "the business?" That's the norm, not the exception which is why so many of our Fortune 500 companies languish; if the majority of BODs know anything its the stock price manipulation & finance ... but very little about operations which actually generate the revenue.

I'm diverging ...

this thread has been running over a month now ... and the Impeachment of Trump is going to be stellar to watch. Pelosi is such a dingbat, but she doen't operate in a rational world like the rest of us. She earns a living spending someone else's money and leveraging that buying power to garner her own golden parachutes for friends/fam.

... and who has allowed this? you and me.

 

[Joe Fan]

Dem candidates are in Iowa right now, and they are ignoring Impeachment talk. Apparently they mention Trump a lot, but not the "I" word itself.
Weird

 

[OUBubba]

Barry, let me take issue with you on this, and I'll explain my rationale. You can choose to accept it or not, but it is principled. Let's presume the worst case scenario on Trump. Let's assume that he never gave a crap about Ukrainian corruption and that the real motivator on holding up the foreign aid was getting at Joe Biden, and let's assume that this can be established with absolutely conclusive evidence. Is it grounds for removal and totally inappropriate? Absolutely. Using foreign aid for that kind of baldly political purpose can't be tolerated. It's a gross abuse of power. However, what are the implications of doing that? At worst, a guy who certainly had a very suspicious, even if not illegal, arrangement with a dirty Ukrainian gas company gets investigated and might look bad in an election year.

Though Democrats downplayed it at the time when it was politically convenient, perjury is a big deal. The entire justice system (civil and criminal) is dependent on people taking an oath and having that mean something. Everyday, we take people's life, liberty, and property in reliance on witnesses taking the stand and telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Sometimes, the word of that witness is the only thing upon which we rely, even in death penalty cases. It is literally a matter of life and death, and the system collapses if we don't take it seriously. In its place, we get routine injustice, and in the case of death penalty cases, horrific injustice.

I'm not naive. I know that witnesses sometimes lie under oath, and most of the time, they get away with it. However, the deterrent comes from the fact that if you are caught, the consequences are severe. When the President of the United States is caught red-handed as Clinton was, and we just blow it off, it undermines the impact of that deterrent in a very high profile way. That's why it's a big deal and why he should have been tossed, and that's why it's arguably more consequential than what Trump may have done. That doesn't diminish what Trump may have done. He should still go if guilty, but a little perspective is in order.

Thanks for that summary. Hard to disagree with. The only pushback I would give is the context of the untruth. If he were lying about national security or something consequential I’d be more apt to agree with you 100%. This was about inappropriate sexual relations. Ironically, Newts government shutdown put Monica in Clinton’s circle because she was an unpaid intern. Without the shutdown their paths would have never crossed.

 

[Joe Fan]

Amazing

The unelected bureaucracy thinks it gets to set the foreign policy agenda of the US over the person elected by the people

 

[Joe Fan]

Furthermore, there is apparently some reason to believe that this guy, Eric Ciaramella, may have also have been the mysterious "Charlie," who was referred to by Lisa Page and Peter Strzok in their sexting, but who is yet unidentified.

On the next page of the memo, they refer to "the CI guy in the White House"

There are suggestions being floating out there today that the "whistleblower" is going to be implicated in the IG's report on the Obama Admin's abuses of the FISA Court system. Which might be a reason he is attempting this 'whistleblower' tact.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Former CIA director -- they arent even trying to pretend anymore

 

[Joe Fan]

Oh ....

 

[Horn6721]

I bet I can go back and fine posts from our LIPC that ridicule the idea of a " deep state ".

 

[Garmel]

Maybe we should all chip in and buy that for Husker for Christmas.

 

[Joe Fan]

Oh ....

Since Ukraine seems to be tanking, too, just like every other idea theyve had, I found Nancy some new grounds for Impeachment

 

[Mr. Deez]

Thanks for that summary. Hard to disagree with. The only pushback I would give is the context of the untruth. If he were lying about national security or something consequential I’d be more apt to agree with you 100%. This was about inappropriate sexual relations.

But that's like saying Trump's controversy is only about a few phone calls. The implications are what matter. Clinton didn't just lie about an inappropriate sexual relationship. Frankly, it's coincidental that the lie happened to involve a sexual fling. He lied to subvert a civil case and then lied again about the same thing to a grand jury. That was the real purpose. He also induced Monica Lewinsky to lie under oath about it in her affidavit. This was more than a "little white lie" to hide a BJ and some innocent cigar humping from his wife. That was always a stupid narrative. Hillary knew he was a sawed-off Wilt Chamberlain long before the Lewinsky affair. He wasn't hiding anything from her. He was cheating or trying to cheat a civil trial, and that's a big problem.

And it worked. Initially, the lawsuit was dismissed. Then he got caught BSing, the case got appealed, and he ended up forking out several hundred grand to settle.

Ironically, Newts government shutdown put Monica in Clinton’s circle because she was an unpaid intern. Without the shutdown their paths would have never crossed.

Ugh. I'll never regret that shutdown, because if it hadn't occurred, I may have ended up with Bill Clinton's sloppy seconds and therefore perhaps chlamydia. It's a bit attenuated, but I dated a White House intern at about that time. If Monica hadn't been around to lure Clinton, maybe he would have gone for the chick I ended up dating. I am glad that I never went where his filthy junk had been.