Discussion about hot topics trending today

[Gatefan1976]

Ok, so he can't be impeached, he holds no office.

What should he be charged with for using his position for personal gain while he was in office? Or does he walk?
The statute of limitations would NOT have run out on this yet.

I would imagine a form of a corruption charge, possibly peverting the course of justice and RICO offences if tax avoidance was involved.

[Gatefan1976]

And Biden didn't have Obama's ear?
Foreign policy is the purview of the President. So it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect action on a request. The only thing that makes it a problem is that it was for Biden's personal benefit.

Oh, by the way, since foreign relations are the business of the President, Trump would have been well within his job description to use quid pro quo to encourage Ukraine to look into Biden. But he didn't even do that, as the released transcript of the call shows.

So, you're saying that it's ok for Biden to use his influence improperly/illegally to get his kid do-nothing cushy job, but it's not ok for Trump to request that the Ukraine investigate in a completely legal matter?

TDS much?

No, it is strictly against the constitution to accept anything that helps the POTUS -personally- from a foreign leader. Getting dirt on your political rivals is a thing of value. It is the very definition of an impeachable offence.

[Annoyed]

No, it is strictly against the constitution to accept anything that helps the POTUS -personally- from a foreign leader. Getting dirt on your political rivals is a thing of value. It is the very definition of an impeachable offence.

And Biden's kid's job wasn't a thing of value?

He was asking for assistance investigating possible corruption by Biden. Fair game. It's actually Biden that got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

In the long run, this whole thing is going to benefit Trump anyway. The Impeachment sham is D.O.A. in the Senate, and as part of bringing it, the Dems are killing off their only candidate that might beat Trump next fall.

[Gatefan1976]

And Biden's kid's job wasn't a thing of value?

You DO realise this has actually been investigated, and no charge was laid -by a republican house and senate- Right?

He was asking for assistance investigating possible corruption by Biden. Fair game. It's actually Biden that got his hand caught in the cookie jar.

Nope. You are attempting to exonerate trump by using a really simple form of "whataboutism", and again, this was investigated at the time and the republican house and senate could find no proof of the charge.

In the long run, this whole thing is going to benefit Trump anyway. The Impeachment sham is D.O.A. in the Senate, and as part of bringing it, the Dems are killing off their only candidate that might beat Trump next fall.

This is just so sad. I suppose you agree with the character assassination of Alex Vindman as well?

[Annoyed]

You DO realise this has actually been investigated, and no charge was laid -by a republican house and senate- Right?

Nope. You are attempting to exonerate trump by using a really simple form of "whataboutism", and again, this was investigated at the time and the republican house and senate could find no proof of the charge.

This is just so sad. I suppose you agree with the character assassination of Alex Vindman as well?

After 3 years of attempts to undo the election of 2016, groundless accusation after groundless accusation, going on constantly, one after the other, with the Democrats hoping something sticks, all of which have utterly failed, do you think I place any credence whatsoever in whatever or whoever the left brings next?

It is all background noise as far as I'm concerned. What I have heard about Vindman is that he tried to edit the transcript. And I'm not surprised that the left is trying to use him as "evidence". No lie, untruth or cheap stunt is off the table for them in their endless attempts to undo 2016.

[jelgate]

And yet you continue the believe the lies from Trump without evidence. Time for my hypocrisy bacon GF

[Gatefan1976]

Let me first note you never answered the question. You should run for office.

After 3 years of attempts to undo the election of 2016

This is impossible. You have got your SCOTUS judges, fed judges and state Judges. You have got your winding back of EPA, education, health and trade.
Impaeaching trump WILL NOT CHANGE THIS.
What you really mean is removing trump from office, which is protecting him. Not the USA, not even the republican agenda. He LOST the popular vote, and when you invariably bring up the EC, that's a function of the constitution, SO IS IMPEACHMENT.
You are defending trump, not your nation, or even your ideals.
This is the real TDS.

groundless accusation after groundless accusation

Name one NOT caused by trump himself.
Then name the same one he has not tried to lie or evade.
Russian interference? Sorry, your "best in the world" intelligence system said it happened, and on live TV, trump asked for russia to find hillaries emails and said they would be rewarded. Hardly baseless.
Obstruction?
Mueller provided 10 EXAMPLES of obstruction, but followed DOJ outlines of not being able to charge a sitting president and turned it over to the house and senate, you know, the people granted the constitutional power to impeach.
Sexual misconduct?
We have him on tape, and we have people sitting in jail based on this issue right now. There are also some 43 woman alleging sexual misconduct right now.
Ukraine phone call? We have the rough transcript, yet even it makes clear that trump was asking for a personal favour.
ALL of these things came about because trump could not shut the hell up, and people took it as thier duty to investigate, same as it was the duty of people to investigate Clinton for lying under oath about a non crime (which the house still voted to impeach him on).

going on constantly, one after the other, with the Democrats hoping something sticks, all of which have utterly failed

3rd president in US history to undergo impeachment hearings, which as of tommorow, your time may be publicly broadcast?
I think some thing has stuck.

do you think I place any credence whatsoever in whatever or whoever the left brings next?

Do you think the GOP will have any left AFTER trump?

It is all background noise as far as I'm concerned. What I have heard about Vindman is that he tried to edit the transcript.

Yes, because thats what 20 year military vets do...........
Do you trust a politician, or a vet?

And I'm not surprised that the left is trying to use him as "evidence". No lie, untruth or cheap stunt is off the table for them in their endless attempts to undo 2016.

Projection much?
How many lies and stunts were pulled off after Obama was made president?
How much time did the GOP spend trying to ensure he was a one term president?
How much time have the GOP spent trying to invalidate his election by rolling back his policies?
How much time did they deny him his pick of SCOTUS judge?

All you have, is projection, because in your mind you think "If we did it to them, they must want to do it to us"
SAD.

[Annoyed]

3rd president in US history to undergo impeachment hearings, which as of tommorow, your time may be publicly broadcast?.

You have been deceived.

The vote tomorrow is NOT the House vote to impeach, which the Republicans have been pushing for. They refuse to do that.

It is only a vote to lay down the ground rules of the process, which is basically letting Adam Schiff restrict what Republicans are allowed access to, what they are allowed to do. From what I read, he's even telling witnesses (which the Dems have chosen to begin with) that they don't have to answer questions from Republicans.

This is what the Democrats are passing off as their impeachment, and their sycophants in the media are shouting it from the rooftops.

Thing about BS coming from the rooftops is that you can see it and sidestep it.

As I've said. I don't care what the mainstream media report. They've been trying to undo 2016 since the morning they woke with their surprise hangover.

And make no mistake. Three's no way to prove this, because this impeachment goes nowhere in the Senate, so in real life, it's dead before it's born. But if it did happen, there would be demands from the left to impeach or remove any justices that Trump appointed, both at SCOTUS and other levels. As well as reverse anything else they could.

[Gatefan1976]

You have been deceived.

The vote tomorrow is NOT the House vote to impeach, which the Republicans have been pushing for. They refuse to do that.

No, you cant READ. I said the hearings could be made public tomorrow, which means you get exactly what you wanted, it won't be behind closed doors anymore.
I did not say the vote to impeach was tomorrow.

It is only a vote to lay down the ground rules of the process, which is basically letting Adam Schiff restrict what Republicans are allowed access to, what they are allowed to do. From what I read, he's even telling witnesses (which the Dems have chosen to begin with) that they don't have to answer questions from Republicans.

Oh no, it is YOU who have been deceived. the 47 Republican representatives who sit on the various commities will be given equal time as their democratic counterparts, same as now but it will be televised LIVE. The public will have full transparency on these proceedings, and C-SPAN will become relevant for a short while.
You wanted it out the "basement", well, you just might get it.

This is what the Democrats are passing off as their impeachment, and their sycophants in the media are shouting it from the rooftops.

Nope, not at all. You wanted it open to the public, now you are gonna get it.

Thing about BS coming from the rooftops is that you can see it and sidestep it.

Ever had a bird crap on you?

As I've said. I don't care what the mainstream media report. They've been trying to undo 2016 since the morning they woke with their surprise hangover.

And as I have said to you, over and over again, it can't be done, unless you have a time machine, and I don't see anyone with one.

And make no mistake. Three's no way to prove this, because this impeachment goes nowhere in the Senate, so in real life, it's dead before it's born.

EVERY CASE that goes to trial has the same chance of failing. You want to throw out the entire legal system because of that?
It's about the legal, constitutional process annoyed. Impeaching Clinton had NO CHANCE of passing either, but republicans did it, AS THEY SHOULD HAVE because Clinton performed an impeachable offence by
A: Lying under oath.
B: Attempting to obstruct justice.

But if it did happen, there would be demands from the left to impeach or remove any justices that Trump appointed, both at SCOTUS and other levels.

And they would have to meet the same bar of 2/3rd majority in the senate to convict. Republicans MIGHT throw trump under the bus, maybe. They would never throw a SCOTUS judge, or any other under the bus in the same way. Nor do I think any of the right leaning judges would perform any act that would even make the hint of a wiff of an impeachable offence. I may -personally- disagree with their current direction, but that in no way makes any of them CRIMINAL. Gorsuch was passed, so no legal issue. Kavenaugh was railroaded through despite alleged offences without a real investigation. I might not like that, but he is there now and impeachment can only happen based on what he does in the office, and again, I don't think he is stupid enough to do something impeachable now.
Trump is demonstrably stupid enough to do it multiple times while in office.

As well as reverse anything else they could.

You mean like what trump has been doing?
Oh noe's.
SAD.

[Annoyed]

No, you cant READ. I said the hearings could be made public tomorrow, which means you get exactly what you wanted, it won't be behind closed doors anymore.
I did not say the vote to impeach was tomorrow.

Oh no, it is YOU who have been deceived. the 47 Republican representatives who sit on the various commities will be given equal time as their democratic counterparts, same as now but it will be televised LIVE. The public will have full transparency on these proceedings, and C-SPAN will become relevant for a short while.
You wanted it out the "basement", well, you just might get it.

We will see what they do, won't we?

[Gatefan1976]

We will see what they do, won't we?

"I have no answer to your fact's so there?"
That's your position on the moral fibre and legal standing as a nation?
Really making America great.
More like flushing it down the can, the way you have historically (and self admittedly) done.
That's some REAL TDS.
SAD

[Gatefan1976]

Extra clarity

What I have heard about Vindman is that he tried to edit the transcript.

Oh, you mean this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/p...ipt/index.html
Specifically:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that one example of his attempts to change the transcript was to include Trump telling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky there were tapes of Biden, which The New York Times reported occurred where there's an ellipsis in the transcript that was released. The change was not made. The assertion that some portion of the conversation was replaced by an ellipsis contradicts the White House's statement in September that the ellipses in the transcript did not represent missing words or phrases. It also contradicts the President who has insisted the transcript the White House released was an exact depiction of the call, even though the memo itself describes it as rough.

The transcript as realesed stands on it's own, including the front page comment of it not being a full transcript.
Or did you miss that salient point?

[Annoyed]

Extra clarity


Oh, you mean this:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/30/p...ipt/index.html
Specifically:
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that one example of his attempts to change the transcript was to include Trump telling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky there were tapes of Biden, which The New York Times reported occurred where there's an ellipsis in the transcript that was released. The change was not made. The assertion that some portion of the conversation was replaced by an ellipsis contradicts the White House's statement in September that the ellipses in the transcript did not represent missing words or phrases. It also contradicts the President who has insisted the transcript the White House released was an exact depiction of the call, even though the memo itself describes it as rough.

The transcript as realesed stands on it's own, including the front page comment of it not being a full transcript.
Or did you miss that salient point?

I don't know about clarity, but you might have more credibility if you would cite news sources which haven't been on an anti-Trump crusade for the last 4 years. Although it might be hard to find them, since so much of the media is so obviously biased.

You think I give a crap what CNN, Vox, or any other pro-left site writes?

[Gatefan1976]

I don't know about clarity, but you might have more credibility if you would cite news sources which haven't been on an anti-Trump crusade for the last 4 years. Although it might be hard to find them, since so much of the media is so obviously biased.

You think I give a crap what CNN, Vox, or any other pro-left site writes?

I'm trying to help you here man, but you are making it hard.
When FOX reports facts, they are facts. When CNN reports facts, they are facts.
The report is about exactly what Vindman testified -UNDER OATH- to. There is no bias, but like a good little soldier, you are claiming fake news.
Can't wait till this process is out in the open, cause I am going to bust a gut listening to people ascribing their own political motives to the people testifying.

[Annoyed]

I'm trying to help you here man, but you are making it hard.
When FOX reports facts, they are facts. When CNN reports facts, they are facts.
The report is about exactly what Vindman testified -UNDER OATH- to. There is no bias, but like a good little soldier, you are claiming fake news.
Can't wait till this process is out in the open, cause I am going to bust a gut listening to people ascribing their own political motives to the people testifying.

I grant a very small chance that you are right.

But I have to make judgements based on what I can know. And one of those things is the recent history of the media, which report on matters. And that history is very poor as far as objectivity goes.

While the media has always been biased to the left, since Trump entered the political fray, this bias has gone off the charts, rails or whatever you want to call it. At this point, they have less than zero credibility. The automatic assumption is that they are full of it, simply pursuing their anti-trump agenda. Oh, and btw, within the past week, I posted an article about CNN's boss issuing directives to his employees to focus on taking Trump down.

As far as openness of the impeachment process in the House now that they've had their "vote", if you think we're gonna get that, you know nothing about how politics works around here.

We'll see which of us is closer to the truth as it plays out, won't we?

[EDIT] Might not even have to wait that long.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...mpowerment-act
[/EDIT]