All Things Impeachment Inquiry

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Did you not recently emphatically point at Fox News for NOT showing the arguments of the House Managers and allege that FNC was showing ONLY the Trump defense team’s arguments in totality, which I then went on to prove totally wrong (b/c FNC covered the arguments the same by preempting the prime time shows for both sides, to argue that FNC was being biased?

But when I demonstrate Fox News’ balance and fairness, it’s an :rolleyes:?

Howie>>>Hypocrite, hack, TDS sufferer.
Fox News is a propoganda outlet and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it. You can have whatever delusions you like. One comment or tweet being mildly critical of Dear Leader every 24 hours of broadcast does not make them "Fair and Balanced".
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
I'm a bit more concerned with the argument that anything that helps the re-election of the President is good for the country, and is not impeachable.
I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of the argument. I've seen everyone touting the same thing. But it's not the spirit or the fact of what he said. He's saying it's difficult to impossible to distinguish personal benefit from public benefit. You can characterize anything a president does as beneficial to his reelection efforts. Obamacare was a personal benefit to Obama because it helped his reelection efforts (allegedly). If the sole argument being made was that a quid pro quo benefitted the president, and is on that argument alone, impeachable, then anything is impeachable. He used Israel, a Democratic president could argue that Israel will not get any more aid unless they eliminate settlements. That's a quid pro quo and only the most naive will think that isn't how Washington works. And that stance might be popular for his reelection efforts with Dems, and therefore in POTUS personal interest.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
I'm a bit more concerned with the argument that anything that helps the re-election of the President is good for the country, and is not impeachable.
That's true. Why not hack the voting machines? Ivanka's got the patents. It's in the nation's interests to re-elect Dear Leader so it's totally fine to do it. MAGA!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Fox News is a propoganda outlet and anyone with an ounce of sense can see it. You can have whatever delusions you like. One comment or tweet being mildly critical of Dear Leader every 24 hours of broadcast does not make them "Fair and Balanced".
Do you watch Fox? No. What is it about Fox you see? A comment or tweet on the Daily Show.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
The story didn't start with Trump. Obama has a pen and a phone. If Congress won't act, he will. Not how it works, but he wasn't impeached.
And, Obama did it to help his 2012 re-election. The DACA executive order was signed in the summer of 2012, just before the election..after saying dozens of times that he just can’t do that.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
And, Obama did it to help his 2012 re-election. The DACA executive order was signed in the summer of 2012, just before the election.
Which Dems today would characterize as breaking the law to personally help him cheat an election.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
That's true. Why not hack the voting machines? Ivanka's got the patents. It's in the nation's interests to re-elect Dear Leader so it's totally fine to do it. MAGA!
Nobody is going to buy that patent of voting machines narrative howie. Even the MSM knows only a moron would run with that.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
40,474
Reaction score
1,271
Points
113
Nobody is going to buy that patent of voting machines narrative howie. Even the MSM knows only a moron would run with that.
What did she need the patent for again? Oh right, to protect her "name." "Ivanka Trump voting machines" would have sold like hot cakes. Totally believable story!

It's not necessary, anyway. Just un-register enough folks in a few key states.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
And, Obama did it to help his 2012 re-election. The DACA executive order was signed in the summer of 2012, just before the election..after saying dozens of times that he just can’t do that.
Are you implying that there were tons of illegals voting for him as a result? Nobody has shown that, ever.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
Are you implying that there were tons of illegals voting for him as a result? Nobody has shown that, ever.
No. That’s not what I’m implying. :rolleyes: Smh

By enacting something that liberals would like, more (legal) voters would vote for him. Just like the Dems are claiming that Trump helps himself by hurting his potential opponent’s voting support.

That’s totally ridiculous, but it’s what Dems seem to believe. There are mix motivations. I’m sure Obama wanted to do it for both.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Not parallel. Shooting the winning basket isn't the same as holding a player's jersey to prevent him from doing so.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
12,904
Reaction score
473
Points
83
Not parallel. Shooting the winning basket isn't the same as holding a player's jersey to prevent him from doing so.
Bad analogy. There’s no law against Trump asking for an investigation. Especially considering that some people seem to think it’s okay if it’s not a potential political opponent, and that it’s different if he/she is.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,504
Reaction score
973
Points
113
He's saying it's difficult to impossible to distinguish personal benefit from public benefit.
Only when forced to rely on pure logic.

Humans are capable of rendering judgements in scenarios where pure logic alone fails.

If enough people agree that it seems he was doing it for personal gain, we can arbitrarily declare that it is so.
 

diehard

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
31,597
Reaction score
35
Points
48
The Fellas won't like what some future Democratic President does to "combat global warming" in the future as long as they have 34 Senators to back them up.
What future Democrat President? The Ds just committed political suicide. BTW, that isn't good for America. No, I do not trust the Rs in DC Raleigh, maybe, but doesn't mean anything to any of you... Of course you are not sharp enough to absorb that.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
9,504
Reaction score
973
Points
113
if it’s not a potential political opponent
Like it or not, this one quality is sufficient as a reasonable basis for motivating personal benefit.

Murdering a guy who was on his way to kill a bunch of people in a public place, doesn’t disprove that it was murder or that you can’t be held responsible for the murder.

The DA may choose not to press charges, but nothing is automatically taken off the table.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
42,332
Reaction score
543
Points
113
Not parallel. Shooting the winning basket isn't the same as holding a player's jersey to prevent him from doing so.
The argument from the Dems is almost entirely dependent on "did something for his own personal benefit using the power of his office". That framing is completely spurious. If it was something that was for his own financial benefit, it's a little easier to define. But investigating corruption as a condition for receiving aid is in no way "purely for his personal benefit".
Obama's DOJ and FBI investigated Trump prior to the election. How is this different? Trump doesn't get immunity from Obama's justice because he's running for office. Biden doesn't either.

And if you doubt this is the central point of their case, imagine impeaching a president for delaying aid but still delivering it on time with no conditions.
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
The argument from the Dems is almost entirely dependent on "did something for his own personal benefit using the power of his office". That framing is completely spurious. If it was something that was for his own financial benefit, it's a little easier to define. But investigating corruption as a condition for receiving aid is in no way "purely for his personal benefit".
Obama's DOJ and FBI investigated Trump prior to the election. How is this different? Trump doesn't get immunity from Obama's justice because he's running for office. Biden doesn't either.

And if you doubt this is the central point of their case, imagine impeaching a president for delaying aid but still delivering it on time with no conditions.
So we can put this coup nonsense to bed?
 

OldBob53

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
1,052
Reaction score
135
Points
63
I read somewhere that brainwashing doesn't exist, per the American Pyschologist Association. They were obviously wrong.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
So we can put this coup nonsense to bed?
Attempted. Spied on Trump using foreign nations and the intel agencies. Proven. Coup failed.
Attempted. Hired Robert Mueller to spend two years 32 million USD to dig and continue to spy (illegally) on Trump (proven). Coup failed.
Attempted. Fake WB issues false complaint (proven) to fire up round three of the coup attempt. Will fail.
There will be more. They are not going to quit. Why? They have to get Trump removed. He damages the network of pay for play and he threatens the status quo of Washington- in addition to the existential threat of the ongoing investigation of the coup attempts 1-2-3.

Sorry sir but your bingo card was incorrectly filled out. Have a seat please and good luck next time.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
I read somewhere that brainwashing doesn't exist, per the American Pyschologist Association. They were obviously wrong.
It doesn't exist for puppets so you are safe Bob. Don't worry!
 

Tredwell

Active member
Joined
Aug 21, 2019
Messages
439
Reaction score
96
Points
28
Hmm, why is Mr. Underwear trending?

In an interview via Skype, Dershowitz insisted he never saw an underage girl at Epstein's house, but was worked on by an older lady. Huh?

"Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that," he said.

"I kept my underwear on during the massage," Dershowitz went on to stammer. "I don't like massages particularly."
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
38,907
Reaction score
1,317
Points
113
Hmm, why is Mr. Underwear trending?

In an interview via Skype, Dershowitz insisted he never saw an underage girl at Epstein's house, but was worked on by an older lady. Huh?

"Were there young women in another part of the house giving massages when I wasn't around? I have no idea of that," he said.

"I kept my underwear on during the massage," Dershowitz went on to stammer. "I don't like massages particularly."
Mr. Underwear is trending because they know that Dershowitz beat them. Whether or not Dershowitz in his private life is a dirtbag, is another issue. It's not good where he was with Epstein. We'll see on that. Bill Clinton ran a nice economy and was well spoken, but in his private life- a racist who was married to an enabling power hungry wife.

The real lesson here is that everyone is merely a tool for the left. They will love you as long as they can use you and then they will tear you up and cancel your ticket. That's who the left is.

John Bolton will be catching on to this lesson soon...
 

saintpaulguy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2009
Messages
4,396
Reaction score
199
Points
63
Attempted. Spied on Trump using foreign nations and the intel agencies. Proven. Coup failed.
Attempted. Hired Robert Mueller to spend two years 32 million USD to dig and continue to spy (illegally) on Trump (proven). Coup failed.
Attempted. Fake WB issues false complaint (proven) to fire up round three of the coup attempt. Will fail.
There will be more. They are not going to quit. Why? They have to get Trump removed. He damages the network of pay for play and he threatens the status quo of Washington- in addition to the existential threat of the ongoing investigation of the coup attempts 1-2-3.

Sorry sir but your bingo card was incorrectly filled out. Have a seat please and good luck next time.
I've got blackout.
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,257
Reaction score
283
Points
83
The upcoming election will handle that.Are you on the Trump Victory team?
Nah. I am on the Constitutional victory team. By the way, who replaces Trump if he is convicted?
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
7,257
Reaction score
283
Points
83
Ok Dean, I'll bite.
It's none of our business who hires Hunter and how much he gets paid. Up until the point his dad was in charge of US Ukrainian policy and threatened to withhold $1 Billion in aid unless a prosecutor involved with an investigation of Hunter's company was fired.
Maybe Burisma was trying to reform its governance to follow Ukrainian law? And so a drug addict son of the vice president who is a lawyer and started two companies and was an investment banker is the perfect choice to help them reform that governance?
Maybe the prosecutor was bad and wasn't investigating Burisma at all. Maybe he was corrupt as all get out, and everyone else was innocent and pure.
But, with a straight face (I doubt you were) arguing that this is just about nepotism and capitalism is rich.
AS to Hunters drug addiction, there is no evidence of addiction, only a single positive test of a very limited amount of cocaine. He has yet to test positive to a second test. And, his health, based on an eyeball test, suggests he isn't taking illicit drugs. I have seen users come in for their tests, there are obvious tells even before the tests. When you are involved in healthcare, you get a very good sense of the illicit drug user cons.
 
Top Bottom