|
Replies: 68
| visibility 1
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Serious question for Trump defenders during impeachment
Dec 10, 2019, 3:22 PM
|
|
For those who are adamant that this is wasted time and that he should not be impeached. Or a political witch hunt. Whichever you prefer.
Do you believe Nixon should have been impeached for his actions? Why or why not?
For reference, Nixon's articles of impeachment were abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and contempt of Congress.
|
|
|
|
 |
Legend [15216]
TigerPulse: 98%
Posts: 18247
Joined: 6/10/09
|
Re: Serious question for Trump defenders during impeachment
Dec 10, 2019, 3:32 PM
|
|
All liberals should be impeached for being idiots.
All God-fearing conservatives should not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Serious question for Trump defenders during impeachment
Dec 10, 2019, 3:39 PM
|
|
I havent seen any 'God fearing' conservatives lately. I've seen a lot of 'Trump fearing' conservatives though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [78886]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 26424
Joined: 12/6/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't
Dec 10, 2019, 3:45 PM
|
|
alive. BUT, Nixon was a complicit in a felony that occurred on American soil. Clinton was complicit in a felony that occurred on American soil when he perjured himself. Trump's impeachment is different substantively from those two. And I have no clue back then if Nixon would have been convicted in the Senate but he stood a much greater chance given the Senate was democratic back then. I didn't support Clinton's impeachment, and the Senate agreed. I don't support Trump's impeachment, and I guess we will have to see in the Senate with him, assuming the House actually votes. Nixon orchestrated a breakin of DNC headquarters, thereby trying to gain an advantage over MANY opponents. Trump asked a foreign leader to investigate one specific instance of corruption that may have involved a political opponent.
All three times it was a House run by the party opposing the sitting President. With Nixon, though, the democrats held the Senate as well, so there's a decent chance he would have been impeached in the Senate. With Clinton and now Trump, the Senate was held by the President's party, so I doubted it with Clinton and I doubt it now with Trump.
Just how I see it.
Oh, and Trump may be the first President to be impeached by the House in a first term then win a second term. Not a great vote of confidence in Congress, who has a sub 25% approval rating since forever. For the record, Clinton would have won a third term if he could have run, after his impeachment for perjury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't
Dec 10, 2019, 3:48 PM
|
|
I had just gotten out of High School when Nixon was impeached. The whole country was super pisszed when Ford pardoned him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Holy crap, how old are you?***
Dec 10, 2019, 3:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
watch it :-)***
Dec 10, 2019, 3:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [73569]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 78044
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Sorry, just didn't think he/she/it was that old
Dec 10, 2019, 3:56 PM
|
|
I was thinking 12 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Old enough to be in the only demographic that still watches
Dec 10, 2019, 4:06 PM
[ in reply to Holy crap, how old are you?*** ] |
|
cable news. Probably all day being retired and all. Which brings up something interesting. Remember back when you were growing up, say in the 80's, and old people were the voice of reason and were always calm and kept everything in perspective and showed great wisdom?
That is different today. Old people watch cable news more than any other demographic and they all think Trump is Hitler and we're all going to be underwater from global warming or killed by massive earthquakes any day now.
The MEDIAN age of cable news viewers is 60 for CNN and 65 for MSNBC, and that was in 2017. 66yo for Fox News. And these older people, like Felix, grew up in an era when the media was trusted, bipartisan, and presented both sides of almost every issue. So many of them just believe whatever they see on cable news now, and that's a shame because the news is NOTHING like what it was when I was growing up. Old people tend to be the least realistic and wise people when talking about current events. Gone are the days when you could sit on grandpaw's lap and he would assure you everything will be alright. Now grandpaw is calling you at 1am to ask if you've taped your windows and moved your patio furniture inside from the massive tropical depression that is going to kill thousands in biblical flooding, as they watch the weathermen reporting paddling in canoes in ankle-deep water or hanging onto telephone poles while people stroll by. Oh, and the diseases.....don't even go there. 3 people contracted boubonic plague in Arizona and another three fell into the Grand Canyon (about an average year) and my mother was just about to go ballistic when we announced we were going to visit the grand canyon in Arizona this spring. Somehow we survived though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56069]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31637
Joined: 8/27/02
|
They sure don't make old people like they used to, sonny.***
Dec 10, 2019, 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
nor cable news***
Dec 10, 2019, 4:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Old enough to be in the only demographic that still watches
Dec 11, 2019, 10:57 AM
[ in reply to Old enough to be in the only demographic that still watches ] |
|
There is a lot of truth to what you say Tiggity. The news is drastically different than it was years ago. Today it's mostly spin and opinion. They state the news and then try to tell people what they should think about that news. It used to be reporters offered no opinion during the broadcast, but at the end of the news they would have an "Editorial" and give their opinions. It was clearly labeled as editorial.
The laws have change to make new worse. There used to be an equal time rule which doesn't exist. There used to be a rule that no single entitiy could own TV stations and Newspapers at the same time. News was decentralized and local stations were as important as networks.
Today, it's all corporate media which have their own agendas. And I agree, a lot of people believe what they hear on cable news as gospel. Recently at a campaign rally a older woman said she had no idea that the Mueller report contained 'anything bad'. She confessed to watching only conservative media. At the same time MSNBC and CNN float left and far left ideas that they express as the "norm" when in reality they're views held by a minority of people.
Media is hurting us bad now. Left or Right people are having a hard time determining what is true and what is not. Where is Walter Concrite when we need him. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Holy crap, how old are you?***
Dec 11, 2019, 10:49 AM
[ in reply to Holy crap, how old are you?*** ] |
|
65 last month. If I'd known I'd live this long, I would've taken way better care of myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17914]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8938
Joined: 12/24/96
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Just want to point out some things...
Dec 10, 2019, 4:16 PM
[ in reply to Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't ] |
|
Where the crime occurs (American soil) doesn't matter. (But even if it did, Trump was on American soil when he asked a foreign country to interfere in our elections so...)
The number of "opponents" doesn't matter (But if it did, Trump's opponent was a "fair election" which would include pretty much everyone: candidates, voters, officials, etc..)
Trump asked a foreign leader to purposefully investigate his political opponent in order to interfere in an election. He didn't ask his state department or intelligence agencies to investigate the corruption, he asked a foreign country to. He went outside our country (and its rules/laws) in order to have another country interfere into our elections on his personal behalf. If you don't think that's an impeachable offense, then I question why you may think that.
I agree that b/c the senate is GOP controlled, it seems unlikely they will carry through on removing Trump. They've made it clear they put party before country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
"They've made it clear they put party before country."
Dec 10, 2019, 4:21 PM
|
|
So in your perspective, removing a sitting president for asking for an investigation (asking..not all the other stuff you said) is best for the country?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
in order to interfere in a presidential election? absolutely***
Dec 10, 2019, 4:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
hmmm....
Dec 10, 2019, 4:30 PM
|
|
So had Trump found out about Biden's son's dealings (and Biden's possible indiscretions) by himself, you'd be ok with him using this for election purposes...but if Trump asked someone to find the info for him, who is an ally and closer to the matter than anyone else is...you have a problem with it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
He asked a foreign country to investigate his opponent...
Dec 10, 2019, 4:42 PM
|
|
or more accurately, he asked a foreign country to announce they were investigating his political opponent. In order to make them do this, he held up military aid passed by Congress and the Pentagon until Ukraine announced the investigation. Ukraine was set to make this announcement on CNN. When the whistleblower and investigations start Trump releases the money and the announcement on CNN is abruptly cancelled by the Ukraine President. If you have no problems with this then I'd like to know why.
Trump didn't find anything out by himself (as there hasn't been anything to find out), and most likely, he doesn't care. What he simply wanted was Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden in order to influence the presidential election.
To answer your question more directly: Trump asked a foreign country to announce/do an investigation into his political rival instead of his own state dept/intelligence and he used taxpayer money as leverage to do so all for his personal benefit. So yes, I have a problem with it. You don't?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
You avoided the whole question.
Dec 10, 2019, 4:47 PM
|
|
Which really tells me the answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
No I didn't.***
Dec 10, 2019, 4:48 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Or perhaps a BS impeachment charge, coming on the heels of a
Dec 10, 2019, 5:02 PM
[ in reply to He asked a foreign country to investigate his opponent... ] |
|
BS "Russian collusion" investigation, just might look even worse than asking a foreign leader on a phone call to investigate the millions the son of a sitting VP received while on the board of a company he was totally not qualified in any way to be on. Humm....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Godalmighty, you guys are being intentionally obtuse.
Dec 10, 2019, 5:56 PM
|
|
Nobody has a problem with Biden being investigated. Either one of them. And if either is corrupt or broke laws, throw them in jail and throw away the key. They were both already investigated, but investigate them again, and again. Hillary sat through it seven (7) times. Nobody cares.
But you can't 1) withhold congressionally-approved foreign aid money to do so, 2) you must go through the proper channels to do so, if a particular individual being investigated is a (potential) political opponent, you HAVE to be completely transparent when a foreign government is involved due to ACTUAL LAWS regarding foreign interference in US elections. Trump fucked both of those up quite badly.
The problem is that I don't think we're even debating whether it's provable enough to impeach. I think you really, genuinely believe that even if the above events were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, you still don't think it's impeachable. I implore you to tell me I'm mistaken, and that you do actually understand that a sitting POTUS cannot use his office for personal gain (moreso than this one has already done with his businesses and hotels, I mean).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Well, regarding your #1, Biden's already admitted that
Dec 10, 2019, 6:10 PM
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnIPw_Who7E
He threatened to withhold Congressionally approved foreign aid. And he CAN do that, and so can Trump. We do that all the time. Hell, that's the purpose of foreign aid, to get other countries to do what we want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Then investigate him. Again. And again.
Dec 10, 2019, 6:24 PM
|
|
If they did something illegal, fuckem. You’re intentionally ignoring the important factors in that story, but whatever.
Do you not find it odd that Trump had both houses for 2 full years, and didn’t bother mentioning Biden once? Do you find it even slightly coincidental that the request for investigation came when Biden had a 20 point lead over every other nominee? Does it raise an eyebrow for you that the most important part of the “investigation” wasn’t the actual investigation, but the public announcement of it?
It’s bizarre how you have sacrificed everything that you understand to be ethical, to defend a politician. But please, answer my previous question: if it is proven beyond doubt that Trump used his office for political/electoral gain by way of withholding foreign aid...is it impeachable? Help me baseline the conversation we’re having.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
You guys might have more sympathy for your cause if
Dec 10, 2019, 6:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Who is “you”? I didn’t do any of this.
Dec 10, 2019, 6:28 PM
|
|
Answer the question: if what Trump is being accused of is proven to be true, is it impeachable? Let’s establish what we’re debating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Who is “you”? I didn’t do any of this.
Dec 10, 2019, 6:34 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
Thank you for answering honestly.
Dec 10, 2019, 6:42 PM
|
|
Your soul, along with our republic, will be bought and paid for if essentially irrefutable proof comes to pass.
No lie, I’m shocked that you believe this is a technicality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Asking the truth to be discovered in an ongoing
Dec 10, 2019, 6:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
You’re already taking victory laps on an unreleased report?
Dec 10, 2019, 6:59 PM
|
|
It’s like you missed the whole Mueller thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not doing anything of the sort
Dec 10, 2019, 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137908]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63799
Joined: 10/22/00
|
How does the Durham report relate to this in any fashion?
Dec 10, 2019, 7:33 PM
|
|
There is nothing to "move on to" with this impeachment investigation without the direct actions of the President and his staff. Literally, nothing there...except what they said and did. It's not being fabricated, it's being uncovered and discovered. I can tell it's making you guys uneasy because you're firing in all directions.
If zero incremental evidence is uncovered from here forward...I think we know what happens. Impeached, and acquitted in the Senate. Yay. But as more and more comes to light, what do you expect to be the result? It'll be interesting to see, and remember...this is not a fabricated witch hunt, as you claim the Russian collusion investigation was. This is all a direct result of recorded actions and under-oath testimonies.
I'm still blown away that you don't think withholding congressionally-approved foreign aid for personal benefit isn't an impeachable offense. You seem like a pretty smart guy, too. Just to clarify, when a Democrat does this in 3 years, or 8 years, you'll have no problem with it, as the precedent of democracy for sale has already been established, correct?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: How does the Durham report relate to this in any fashion?
Dec 10, 2019, 7:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Here's an issue I'm having with that logic:
Dec 10, 2019, 7:11 PM
[ in reply to Asking the truth to be discovered in an ongoing ] |
|
"It happened in Ukrainian's country, so they are in the best position to find out." But isn't the issue surrounding Ukraine its many issues with corruption? Why would you ask a country you think is corrupt to investigate itself? Wouldn't you trust your own state dept. or intelligence agencies to investigate these matters over a country you think is so corrupt?
Ah, but this was a new "non-corrupt" administration in Ukraine, you might retort.
If that's the case, what led to this newly "non-corrupt" Ukraine? Perhaps the firing of corrupt prosecutors like Shokin that was led by Biden? The same Shokin that Trump has defended?
And if you are concerned about overall corruption in Ukraine, why only target one man? The same man who just happens to be leading polls to be your opponent in the upcoming presidential election. And why did the concern only start after Biden entered the race? Why not before?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Here's an issue I'm having with that logic:
Dec 10, 2019, 7:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
There was no underlying crime to investigate
Dec 10, 2019, 8:49 PM
|
|
in regards to Biden. Trump was hoping to find something Biden did wrong. He withheld taxpayer funded aid in order for Ukraine to investigate (or announce) based simply on his suspicions. He didn't take those suspicions to the State Dept or to his intelligence agencies that you even seem to agree he should have. Instead, he used his personal attorney and tried to hide the fact he was doing it. Why? Because it was for his personal benefit and he knew it was wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Baseline questions:
Dec 10, 2019, 6:49 PM
[ in reply to Re: Who is “you”? I didn’t do any of this. ] |
|
Should a foreign country interfere in our elections?
Should a President ask/compel a foreign country to interfere in our elections?
If your answer is no, then a follow-up:
What should be the punishment for a President that is found "guilty?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I don't consider asking Ukraine to investigate things that
Dec 10, 2019, 6:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I didn't ask the Ukraine stuff yet, this is just a baseline
Dec 10, 2019, 7:02 PM
|
|
should a foreign country interfere in our elections?
Should a President ask/compel a foreign country to interfere in our elections?
If your answer is no, then a follow-up:
What should be the punishment for a President that is found "guilty?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You are proving his subject line's point...
Dec 10, 2019, 6:34 PM
[ in reply to Well, regarding your #1, Biden's already admitted that ] |
|
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2019/nov/11/rand-paul/rand-paul-said-trumps-actions-related-ukraine-were/
"The big point: On top of the international support for what he did, Biden was representing the views of the U.S. government and its foreign policy analysts."
...
"Biden threatened to withhold aid unless Ukraine fired a prosecutor who was widely viewed as corrupt — in line with U.S. and international policy. Trump, by contrast, temporarily froze aid and then asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden, his potential 2020 political rival.
We rate this statement False."
This has been pointed out numerous times to you and the other cultists that keep bringing it up as if the clip is a "get out of jail card" for Trump when all it really does is prove how incapable you guys are of seeing reality.
And it's telling you didn't address 19B's second point because I think you know that's what makes the situations between Biden's statement/actions and Trump's so different. Biden was incredibly open and transparent about leading the charge (that was bipartisan and international) against Ukraine corruption for the US Government. That's not something someone who is guilty does. On the other hand there's Trump. Trumppurposefully went around the US Government protocols in order to get Ukraine to do his personal favor. Those are the actions of a guilty man.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-Pro [662]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 905
Joined: 11/19/04
|
Re: hmmm....
Dec 10, 2019, 8:26 PM
[ in reply to hmmm.... ] |
|
So had Trump found out about Biden's son's dealings (and Biden's possible indiscretions) by himself, you'd be ok with him using this for election purposes...but if Trump asked someone to find the info for him, who is an ally and closer to the matter than anyone else is...you have a problem with it?
Read the Federal Bribery Law. The crime isn't directly Trump looking for the info. The crime of bribery is if a public official (the President included) corruptly seeks anything of value, in exchange for being influenced in the performance of an official act. He withheld bi-partisan congressionally approved foreign aid (to an ally at war with a country hostile to the United States) in exchange for a public announcement of investigations into a political rival. It's clear as day.
Remember Rod Blagojevich? He was convicted of attempting to sell Obama's vacant Senate seat. He was a public official. He sought something of value in exchange for filling a Senate seat. There actually isn't any proof HE RECEIVED ANYTHING but just the fact he sought it, was enough to find him clearly guilty of corruption and he's still in prison. This crime carries a minimum 5 year sentence by the way. It's a felony charge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Y'all really do simplify this.
Dec 10, 2019, 5:22 PM
[ in reply to "They've made it clear they put party before country." ] |
|
To the point where it's obvious y'all are being intentionally obtuse.
Trump asked for the investigation once Biden became his frontrunner opponent. He never cared about Biden and Ukraine before then. He withheld military aid in exchange. His own chief of staff admitted it was quid pro quo. All the testimonies verify that. It was an attempt by Trump to sway an election (sound like Nixon?).
And then, when the whistleblower came forward, his admin broke the law there as well.
It's a little more than "just asking for an investigation". And you know it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
His Chief of Staff didn't admit anything
Dec 10, 2019, 6:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yeah, no. He said more than that.***
Dec 10, 2019, 7:24 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Yeah, no. He said more than that.***
Dec 10, 2019, 9:25 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Yeah, no. He said more than that.***
Dec 10, 2019, 9:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42151]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38237
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Yeah, no. He said more than that.***
Dec 11, 2019, 7:53 AM
|
|
QUESTION: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?
MULVANEY: The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation, and that is absolutely appropriate.
QUESTION: Withholding the funding?
MULVANEY: Yeah, which ultimately then flowed. By the way, there was a report that we were worried that the money wouldn’t — if we didn’t pay out the money it would be illegal, okay? It would be unlawful.
QUESTION: But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is, funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happened as well.
MULVANEY: We do — we do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they — so that they would change their policies on immigration.
MULVANEY: And I have news for everybody. Get over it. There is going to be political influence in foreign policy.
Thanks for playing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30730
Joined: 8/11/15
|
BUT HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY SAY THE WORDS
Dec 11, 2019, 10:53 AM
|
|
THAT CONFUSE ME
SO THERE
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Why dioes it matter about impeachment anyway. Since you
Dec 10, 2019, 4:55 PM
[ in reply to Just want to point out some things... ] |
|
have such a strong case, does it matter if he's impeached next spring, or fall in the election? Why so much emphasis on impeaching a President up for reelection in what, 6-8 months later? I mean it's such a clear case he will be easily voted out of office by the American people.
We will obviously have President Biden, and the dems will take back the Senate too. What difference does it make at this late stage in the game?
Ever wonder how politicians who are not exactly rich, end up going to Washington and becoming rich? Best way to launder money is on foreign soil. Funnel it back to the US via consultancy payments for a family member. Imagine that. Taxpayer dollars used to enrich the son of a sitting Vice President. Now THAT is much more concerning to the American people than asking a foreign leader to investigate that.
The longer this goes, the more certain I am there will be 4 more years of Trump. You really need to find something better. Guess this was it. And that took a State Dept whistleblower working for months to find something to get "deeply concerned" about.
And heaven forbid you talk about anything substantive that actually impacts the American people. I mean the economy stinks on rocks now, you should be railing on Trump for that. How did we even survive these last 3 years?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Because he's trying to affect that very election coming up.
Dec 10, 2019, 5:08 PM
|
|
I mean, that's pretty obvious right? If you know someone is trying to cheat in an election they are participating in, do you wait until after the election to stop them? That would be dumb, right? We can all agree that would be incredibly dumb? Right? God, I hope we can at least agree that would be dumb.
I love how there's no evidence to back up the claim that Biden laundered money through his son (and Trump doesn't even go this far in his accusations) yet you gobble up that nonsense without any hesitation. You don't question if there was real concern there, why would Trump not go to his state dept/intelligence agencies? Why send his personal attorney (who was the one pushing it along with a reporter who are both connected to corrupt Ukraine officials)? Why was there so much concern from those that found out about the plan and testified in the hearings?
If Biden did something wrong, investigate and nail his ###. I don't care. But Trump doesn't care either. Not really. He just wants to win reelection and he did so by extorting a foreign country to interfere in our elections on his behalf.
Note: Your use of "deep state" certainly informs where you're coming from on this and where you get your opinions from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
When did I mention deep state?
Dec 10, 2019, 5:53 PM
|
|
I missed that part somehow.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18023]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30155
Joined: 9/9/06
|
My bad. You didn't. I apologize.***
Dec 10, 2019, 6:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30730
Joined: 8/11/15
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1405]
TigerPulse: 54%
Posts: 3412
Joined: 1/10/13
|
Re: Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't
Dec 10, 2019, 4:20 PM
[ in reply to Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't ] |
|
A lot to unpack here. Nixon was never directly tied to ordering the break in. We don't know how high it got in the White House. He was going to be impeached because he was caught on tape trying to get the FBI to stop the investigation. And he was only going to be convicted because when the tape came out, his support among Republicans evaporated. So it was a crime, but not a crime that an average Joe could commit.
Clinton did not commit a felony. His lie was about a fact not germane to the case. That's not a crime, but you don't have to commit a statutory crime to be impeached.
Trump used his position to get a personal favor. That is a crime. It's similar to Nixon in that he couldn't have done it without being in a position of governmental power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [81061]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 56139
Joined: 9/13/04
|
Welll..no.
Dec 10, 2019, 4:26 PM
|
|
I googled "is perjury a felony", and got this. I beleive it more than you.
"It is a federal crime to make a material false statement in a matter within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. Perjury is also a federal crime. Perjury is a false statement made under oath before a federal tribunal or official."
"Perjury is considered a serious offense, as it can be used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and provides for a prison sentence of up to five years."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97716]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64855
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Regarding Clinton
Dec 10, 2019, 5:18 PM
[ in reply to Re: Nixon's impeachment never went to the Senate. And I wasn't ] |
|
He perjured himself under oath in a deposition in an answer about a sexual question in a civil case of sexual harassment filed by Paula Jones. The question was germane to the case, was not objected to by Clinton's attorneys, and he lied in his answer, and it was proven later to be a lie. He was later banned for five years from practicing law in Arkansas as a result. Felony. He was filed $90,000 for contempt of court, and paid $25,000 to get his law license back in Arkansas after a 5 year suspension.
Paula Jones' civil lawsuit was due to sexual harassment in the workplace. Therefore, a relationship or affair with a subordinate intern at work (Lewinsky) WAS GERMANE TO THE CASE. It showed a pattern of conduct germane to the Paula Jones lawsuit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_v._Jones
And as far as I'm concerned, this is worse than what Trump is charged with, and I also think it was NOT an impeachable offense, as with Trump.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83625]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63724
Joined: 12/31/06
|
I will treat this question the same way the dems who are...
Dec 10, 2019, 4:08 PM
|
|
running this circus have treated the Clintons
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Nixon got caught with actual physical evidence
Dec 10, 2019, 4:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119697]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54465
Joined: 6/24/09
|
P&RPOD!***
Dec 10, 2019, 4:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20540]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11683
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Nixon got caught with actual physical evidence
Dec 10, 2019, 5:00 PM
[ in reply to Nixon got caught with actual physical evidence ] |
|
You are continuing to assume the GOP Senators will continue to bow meekly before Trump.
Ordinarily I would agree. They haven't shown any inclination to defy Trump thus far.
That said, institutions invariably defend their power. There's a clear scenario - that being the secret ballot - where I could see Trump being removed.
If the votes for that secret ballot mysteriously appear, stick a fork in him. Trump's gone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
That will never happen
Dec 10, 2019, 5:03 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That would be a forfeiture of the 2020 election in that...
Dec 10, 2019, 5:25 PM
[ in reply to Re: Nixon got caught with actual physical evidence ] |
|
Trump is a sure fired winner.
I'm not sure those pub senators would risk their majority or their seats just to get rid of Trump. He might not get along with congressional dems but somehow Trump and the pubs seem to tolerate one another.
Imo, you're reaching if you think there's more than a 8-10% chance pubs hate Trump enough to remove him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [347]
TigerPulse: 84%
Posts: 1062
Joined: 7/1/19
|
Agreed. This is the logical answer.***
Dec 11, 2019, 10:04 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93667]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95418
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Imo, the Clinton impeachment would be more comparable.***
Dec 10, 2019, 5:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2618]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1869
Joined: 8/13/02
|
Re: Serious question for Trump defenders during impeachment
Dec 11, 2019, 9:24 AM
|
|
I’ll bite.
First my disclaimer. I did NOT vote for Trump.
The whole impeachment rings hollow to me because:
1. Democrats have been talking impeachment before a Trump even took office
2. Why didn’t Nancy Pelosi call for impeachment against Bush and Obama. They did much worse. Of course we all know the reason she didn’t.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 68
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
