ENTIRE impeachment thing makes no sense

[jc456]

Those are questions to which there are a multitude of answers. When you start asking "why did Trump do something?", you already have what you think is the only plausible answer in mind, and that answer is derogatory to Trump. The reality is, there are other plausible answers that are not derogatory at all. For instance, why did Trump involve his personal attorney? Maybe he, for good reason, didn't trust the existing trolls as far as he could throw them after seeing things he did leaked to the media in obvious attempts to smear him. The same questions was asked of Hillary in her private email server scandal. Why did she avoid using government provided email services? It would be easy to insist that the only plausible answer is that she wanted to avoid oversight of her communications as Sec State because she was selling access and power, yet that's not the only plausible reason she would do that.

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

Who would that be exactly? I thought Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Didn’t Mulvaney also admit it?

he also said there was no quid pro quo. so which is it? you heard him say that too right? or did you conveniently omit it? well........

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

So you agree the steel dossier was not free or fair.

Huh? The Steele dossier wasn’t a criminal investigation.[/QUOTE......

FISA "court"

So you want me to believe that a secret warrant on a former Trump campaign staffer in a secret investigation that wasn’t revealed until months after the election somehow influenced voters?

How in the Holy Hell did you get that from my post?
You're like bulldog....soon to be on ignore.

To be fair, your post wasn’t formatted right, and if I’m trying to figure out what you did say, it says just two words, FISA court. Maybe you can rephrase it.

No thats not what I posted.

 

[jc456]

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

Legally using the courts is not obstruction. He is under no obligation to make anything easy for the attempt. If he, say, destroys cell phones instead of turning them over to investigators, or deletes emails instead of turning them over, that would be obstruction.

Oh, okay. So maybe we can get to the bottom of this in a few years is what you’re saying?

well we could allow our election process determine what the people want. don't you think that's fair? or are you against someone voting differently than you?

 

[hadit]

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

Legally using the courts is not obstruction. He is under no obligation to make anything easy for the attempt. If he, say, destroys cell phones instead of turning them over to investigators, or deletes emails instead of turning them over, that would be obstruction.

Oh, okay. So maybe we can get to the bottom of this in a few years is what you’re saying?

Or less time if the courts move faster. The point is, the courts are there for a reason, and trying to cut them out of the picture because you want a verdict before the election helps no one. Why is it incumbent on Trump to move things at the speed Pelosi wants him to move them?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Explain Strzok and Paige. Contingency plans and all. Just let the people decide in 2020.

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Explain Strzok and Paige. Contingency plans and all. Just let the people decide in 2020.

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

“Us”? Who is “us”?

 

[colfax_m]

Trump has appointed every attorney and the AG. The idea that he doesn’t trust them enough to look at this matter isn’t rational. He trusts them enough to handle literally every other criminal investigation including the investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. His personal attorney has no subpoena power. No power to indict Biden. No real authority whatsoever. Furthermore, he told Zelinsky he was going to have the AG involved but never did.

Yes, it’s circumstantial but taken into context, it is a very consistent explanation that does not have a rational alternative explanation.

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

Who would that be exactly? I thought Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Didn’t Mulvaney also admit it?

Who quoted Trump directly saying that he wanted a quid pro quo? And who said, when directly asked, that Trump told him he did NOT want a QPQ?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It was. They've been focus group testing the charges to find one that sticks with their uneducated base.

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

 

[colfax_m]

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

Rudy isn’t a prosecutor though. He doesn’t have any authority. Sending your personal lawyer makes it a lot more credible that it was a personal endeavor.

 

[colfax_m]

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

 

[Circe]

He's being impeached for winning the election. That's the bottom line.

Sure. Pelosi didn't want to impeach, understanding well enough that it would look as bad as it does look. But sometimes when you want to be a leader, you have to run around as fast as you can and get in front of the people, who are stampeding a different way than you want to go. And that's what happened to her, IMO.

Just remember that whatever you do to the Republicans they can turn right around and do it back to you at the next opportunity.

I think this is payback time for the Clinton impeachment effort. I thought at the time that this is exactly what would happen. Should have happened to Bush, Jr. if they were going to do it! Bush had a failed presidency but Trump is doing great.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

Rudy isn’t a prosecutor though. He doesn’t have any authority. Sending your personal lawyer makes it a lot more credible that it was a personal endeavor.

Did you not read what I wrote? Is English your 2nd language? Honestly.

 

[colfax_m]

Nothing to explain. Strzok and Page didn’t do anything illegal or inappropriate to Trump.

Trump is trying to cheat. It’s hard to say just let the people vote when it’s not a free and fair election.

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

“Us”? Who is “us”?

The American people mate. You know, the people that Trump and the rest of the government are supposed to be working for.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

He is? How is he doing that? He released the fucking call transcript.

 

[colfax_m]

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

And you have proof of his intent? Please show proof of the intent. Thanks.

1. He got his personal lawyer involved rather than the DoJ. Why would he do that if he was actually concerned about violations of law? Rudy has no legal authority here. He only has responsibility to Trump.

2. There was a push to announce the investigation publicly. The DoJ does not publicly announce investigations for good reason. Why the need for a public announcement if not to cause harm to Biden’s reputation?

Because Trump believes Rudy is still an A+ prosecutor like he was 40 yrs ago. That is stupid but it is not an impeachable offense.

Rudy isn’t a prosecutor though. He doesn’t have any authority. Sending your personal lawyer makes it a lot more credible that it was a personal endeavor.

Did you not read what I wrote? Is English your 2nd language? Honestly.

Seems like it was a bit of a straw man.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's as fair and free as it's always been. How is it not?

Opening bullshit investigations into political opponents is not free and fair. That’s corrupt.

Which is why the impeachment thing is so dangerous for the democrats. They not only signaled that they would attempt to impeach him before he even took office, they spent years and millions of dollars trying to prove him guilty of collusion, and now aren't even using the results of that investigation. The people are noticing, and they will likely pay a big price. Trump hasn't opened any investigations into anyone as of yet. Heck, we don't even know for sure if Crazy Uncle Joe will get the nomination or not. Score to date in questionable investigations: democrats, several. Trump, none.

Dems didn’t spend years trying to prove Russian collusion. The DoJ did. Mueller, a Republican, appointed by Rosenstein, a Republican, did that for us. As the IG report lays bare, it was appropriately predicated.

“Us”? Who is “us”?

The American people mate. You know, the people that Trump and the rest of the government are supposed to be working for.

Mate? So you’re a foreigner. I knew it. These people elected him president. Let’s see what they decide in 2020 and I am not your mate. Loser.

 

[Siete]

Or something that might penetrate the Trump cult.

There’s some irony in people freaking out about Biden getting a prosecutor fired that may have been investigating a company that his son worked for and yet when Trump tried to get a prosecutor fired that definitely was investigating him, crickets.

That's the problem though when you bounce from one charge to another while ignoring the first ones. People start to think you really don't know what you are doing and that you're just desperate to find something to complain about.

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

all trump has to do is testify under oath and bring his cartel with him -

yanno- like Bill Clinton did -

 

[hadit]

When attempting to remove a president, you should have something a lot stronger than circumstantial.

Taken together, it’s a quite strong case. There’s very little reasonable doubt, at least if you aren’t a Trump devotee.

I don't think it's very strong when the only direct witnesses to anything Trump said agree that he didn't want a QPQ.

Who would that be exactly? I thought Sondland said there was a quid pro quo? Didn’t Mulvaney also admit it?

Who quoted Trump directly saying that he wanted a quid pro quo? And who said, when directly asked, that Trump told him he did NOT want a QPQ?

When did Trump say that exactly? That’s right. After he was made aware of the whistleblower account. Hardly exculpatory.

One thing that I did notice about that little phone call account. Trump never brought that up before Sondland did. He has never added any more details than Sondland provided. This tells me one of two things. Either it never happened (there’s been some reporting to this effect) or Trump doesn’t even remember it.

Anyway, do you think Trump has to literally say the words or do you think he would couch it in language that gives him deniability but make it totally clear exactly what he wanted?

Words mean things, and unless you have clear evidence that someone meant one thing when they said something completely different, you can't prosecute them for it. In this case, Trump literally said he did NOT want a quid pro quo. Now, that means you're going to have to have something a lot more convincing than a handful of people saying things like, "I presume the president wanted one", or "I assumed when he said he didn't want one that he really meant he did", or, "everyone in the office thought he wanted one", and things like that.

 

[colfax_m]

Seems like a apt description of three years of Trump’s administration.

He did both, by the way. It’s just that because this is a political process, it needs public support. If this were a legitimate criminal proceeding, it would have been over ages ago.

It is an apt description, because that's exactly what the democrats did in their hounding of Trump. They bounced from "He's icky", to "He colluded", to "Extortion", to "Bribery", and now "Obstruction of Congress". It's reached ludicrous levels. As for impeachment, it certainly needs public support, because it's a very weak case from which to get rid of a president.

Extortion, bribery and abuse of office are different ways to describe similar behavior. Obstruction is obvious.

There’s not really any counter narrative. All Trump has to do is sit back, obstruct any attempts at oversight and say “you can’t prove it”. Sorry, but he’s acting like a thug.

How can one obstruct his own employees? This is a new one.

What? He’s obstructing Congress.

He is? How is he doing that? He released the fucking call transcript.

Are you not aware that Trump has a blanket order to ignore all House document requests and subpoenas?

 

[toobfreak]

Someone explain this please....

It's simple really. The Democrats are way fucked in the head. Part of the ongoing TDS.

They dropped all the charges they've maintained all this time, for two charges:

1. Delaying aid to a small foreign country that has been corrupt and suspected part and parcel of a corruption ring under Obama and Biden and used to thwart his election as not possibly in the national interest that we not know if Biden was doing this stuff just because Biden got into the race late, in which case, shouldn't we be DOUBLY interested to know if he did this stuff? And still, their entire case LACKS PROOF OF INTENT, and rests wholly on assumptions and supposition. Meantime, we delay aid to tons of other countries during all of this.
2. "Obstructing Congress." In other words, they want to impeach Trump for not cooperating with and going along with half-baked efforts to impeach him.

And this is their "streamlined" case trying to make it "understandable" to the people. They worked through the night to come up with this farce. First time I've ever heard the Dems work through the night on anything. And still, not a hint of interest by the democrats to investigate any of the evidence that BIDEN abused his power in office! Yet they want to impeach Trump just for asking.

Gee, I wonder why delaying a little aid to Ukraine "threatened the national security," but Obumma's two year refusal to do anything about the insurgence of ISIS after pulling out of Iraq against the advise of all his generals wasn't? This is gonna be good.