Likes: 
Faceplams: from that perspective, I agree as wellOriginally Posted by Jinsai
Active Member
from that perspective, I agree as well
(Unused symbol)
I don't think this is true. According to sources, privately he says he doesn't want to be impeached. But I think his advisors have convinced him it's the only way he'll get away with everything. Let the House impeach then allow the Senate to blow it off and hold a vote that ultimately fails to convict. Regardless of how damning the evidence is he'll rally and say he was innocent, just ask the Senate that said so. Now whether or not that works at the ballot box...I dunno. Part of me thinks the majority of the American people are smart enough to digest the evidence when presented and vote him out.
I said it once before and I'll say it again: the MBS transcript(s) will be the most shocking. We've already gotten reports he told Xi he'd ignore the unrest in Hong Kong. I would be SHOCKED if there isn't a similar agreement, if not worse, in regards to the Khashoggi murder. I'd like to think transcript evidence of a coverup of the murder of a permanent legal US resident would be enough to sway at least a few GOP senators but we're not dealing with people acting in good faith. With that said, once one or two go...
Bite me
He doesn't want to be impeached.
If he's impeached, he will FOREVER be the third President in the 243-year history of the United States to have been impeached. His name will forever be associated with impeachment. Just like Bill Clinton, who was found not guilty but is also forever associated with impeachment.
The Senate can find him not guilty, or even have the charges dismissed; but that would NOT remove the impeachment stain in Trump's history. He does NOT want that.
Technically, the only way he can "get away with everything" is to cut a plea agreement wherein he resigns in exchange for his not being indicted the second he leaves office, then he'll be pardoned by Pence. This is the deal that Nixon cut.
Last edited by allegro; 10-04-2019 at 01:37 PM.
Active Member
Told you they'd come right to his defense with this exact excuse.
Marco Rubio: the China thing was "not a real request"
Bite me
I hate saying this, but he's right. He's not speaking to China via the TV; he's just blathering, knowing he'll cause drama. The QUESTION is whether or not Giuliani and team have ALREADY tried to pull a quid-pro-quo with China, and this is where Rubio is correct: An investigation will provide real evidence of actual conversations between Trump and his handlers and China (not Trump and the press).
Last edited by allegro; 10-04-2019 at 02:45 PM.
Add Violins
The thing that makes the Ukraine thing such an airtight case (in my opinion) is the fact that he suspended their aid. If Trump had just been babbling his conspiracy shit on the phone, it would be easier for Republicans to blow this off. But him using their aid as a bargaining tool is what crosses the line and makes this a way bigger deal and also makes it harder to dismiss. He was clearly trying to blackmail Ukraine.
And so far the alternative explanations for why he suspended aid to Ukraine are paper thin and make no sense at all. "We wanted to make sure other countries were chipping in as much as the US." How would suspending aid to a country motivate other governments to chip in? That makes zero sense and is fucking ludicrous. His other explanation is basically just a wishy-washy, round about way of admitting to his very crime. "We wanted to make sure they were investigating corruption before we sent the money." For Trump, the so-called "corruption" in Ukraine is just a euphemism for his goofy 4chan conspiracy theory about Joe Biden and his son, which is the very thing he's in trouble for. You can't threaten to withhold foreign aid to a country unless they promise to "look into" (or in other words manufacture) dirt on your political opponent. So this horseshit about how he was worried about "corruption" isn't really an excuse at all.
Bite me
^^ Exactly.
This bullshit where he says he doesn't want to give more money to Ukraine than other countries has been proven false; there's direct evidence that the EU is paying as much or more than the U.S. in defense aid to Ukraine. Second, Ukraine DESPERATELY needed/needs that money; there are THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dead Ukraine soldiers (killed by RUSSIANS) that likely could have been saved had Trump not been playing these bullshit games in withholding money.
So, really, this all comes down to not only Trump's trying to extort Ukraine for Biden dirt but ALSO siding with RUSSIA and helping them in this Russia/Ukraine battle.
See this.
See also these new text messages.
Bill Taylor
12:47 a.m.
As I said on the phone, I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.
Last edited by allegro; 10-04-2019 at 03:23 PM.
Active Member
Is there ever a point where *wink wink nudge nudge* actually becomes something you can prosecute? Or can you get away with literally anything just by "suggesting that X do Y" while communicating in a forum in which you know Y will be able to pick up your message?
Bite me
Lots of this is impeachable NOW.
But some Republicans just want more evidence; likely because this President is doing crazy shit EVERY FUCKING DAY.
IMHO, Trump asking one of our biggest enemies - China - to produce fake dirt on his political opponent in exchange for some favorable trade deal for China is absolutely an impeachable offense. It doesn’t have to technically violate a statute; it only has to violate Trump’s oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Last edited by allegro; 10-05-2019 at 02:28 PM.
(Unused symbol)
I was thinking about a hypothetical earlier: lets say Trump gets reelected. Stay with me after you rinse your mouth out. Ok, so Trump is reelected and 2024 is near. Trump, as president, goes back to the well and asks [country X] to dig up batshit conspiratorial dirt on the Republicans running in the primary against...oh, I dunno...Trump Jr.
How would Lil Marco and Teddy C and the rest of them feel about that?
Active Member
Lets be honest here, Trump Jr's not running, Donald's pushed the republicans into removing term limits before that happens.
Active Member
1) As pessimistic as I am, I know even the kidnapped Supreme Court would strike that down.
2) He's gonna die some day (probably younger than most former presidents when you factor in the health effects of stress that come with being so angry all the time and the probable neurological condition), so Junior will have his chance.
3) One word why the 'pubs would never do that in the first place: Obama. They know that if another candidate like him got in, they'd have decades of them to deal with.
Active Member
I do fear that in the future, one of Trump's sons will run, and maybe even win...ugh
Active Member
Active Member
Any idea how to get that website to work? "It looks like you're using an adblocker!"
Uhhh....no, I'm not. Not in incognito mode. Not running a VPN. Don't have any sort of ad-blocking enabled whatsoever.
tempus est umbra in mente
I don't know it worked for me... but there's not much there beyond the byline. He or she has first-hand observation of the transgression, substantiates the claims of the original whstleblower, and was intending to come forward before the initial whistleblower did. Same lawyer representing both whistleblowers.
Active Member
that's really weird. I have several adblockers running and it worked for me. wild.
Active Member
Does a second whistleblower matter when the white house released a call summary that already corroborated what the first one said?
tempus est umbra in mente
More the merrier
Throbbing Member
Yes, the whistleblower report was about more than just the phone call itself - just as important, it insinuated a cover up to hide the phone calls on a highly secure server. Also, supposedly this one has first hand knowledge, so the Republicans can’t claim its just hearsay anymore. At this point, the republican congressmen/women risks looking even more ridiculous for defending this corruption.
Active Member
Imagine this is the Run For Corruption 5k, and the Republicans are the ones in control of the race itself - but the Democrats can change how far away the finish line is.
Republicans can change the rules of the race all they want to try to stay in it, but if Democrats keep pushing the finish line miles and miles away, then the better the chances become of the Republicans eventually running out of steam and failing to finish the run.
24.24.2.2866
I'm surprised this never gained much if any traction...although i think i read something about Trump's crazy doctor prescribing him Sudafed before.
User points out packs of Sudafed in the drawer that's open, the photo hasn't been altered and you can see the same one on Trump's twitter feed.
Also this other guy in the tweet below who was supposedly involved with the Apprentice as a show staffer? He has some knowledge about his habits, confirms the Sudafed stuff.
This article came up last December but i definitely missed it, Kathy Griffin and Tom Arnold both vouch for him:
https://people.com/tv/former-apprent...rump-drug-use/
Throbbing Member
Not really. I don't know why every response to the various insane excuses and whataboutisms coming from Republicans isn't, "That is irrelevant. The white house confirmed the most damaging part of the whistle blower's report themselves."
Active Member
Makes me wonder what else is in the "diet Coke" that the little red button on his desk is for.
Trollhunter
Here’s a bit of news:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/07/n...uit-vance.html
I can’t imagine what 8 years of Trump’s tax returns will reveal but I bet he won’t like the results.
Active Member
I can't imagine they'll be turned over. They've been legally required to hand them over for quite some time now. I firmly believe that this changes nothing. They'll only be released via leak, or imprisonment of those who are responsible for complying with the requests.
edit: oh gee, what do you know. He's been granted a stay. Already.
Trollhunter
Because of course.
How long does he get to keep dragging his feet?
Throbbing Member
I do not live in the US, nor do I really follow politics. I hate all of it.
May I ask why many Americans are against building a wall? Is is the cost or is it that you disagree with building a wall on the border; or both? The border is open and anyone who meets the criteria (not a criminal) is free to enter the USA, I do all the time from Canada.
Active Member
There's a lot of reasons, but it mainly comes down to it being a waste of money and resources, being ineffective against illegal immigration (which was already at a low when the wall was announced), and the seizure of land owned by Americans to build it. It's basically a very expensive vanity project designed to placate Trumpy's base, who believe immigrants (legal or otherwise) are all lazy people coming to live off welfare while also stealing all of the jobs and making more money than them.
(Unused symbol)
It's also ineffective in terms of incoming drugs as they often are smuggled through checkpoints.
Posting Permissions
