Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Aquinas11]

Deflecting to another President

Says poster with mile long Obama post

A lot of falsehoods and false equivalencies in this post. First, it is reasonable for the executive branch to put conditions on aid in further reaching goals aligned with national policies. That’s what Obama did. Trump put conditions on aid for his own personal reasons. Second, you continue with the falsehood that Biden was somehow corrupt. There is no evidence of that and Biden’s actions were entire consistent with US policy at the time (along with the EU, IMF and anti-corruption Ukrainians). Third, there is no evidence that Obama used foreign intelligence to investigate Trump. Trump triggered investigations when his campaign staff starting bragging in bars about how they got Hillary’s emails to foreign ambassadors. Essentially, Trump brought foreigners into the investigation indirectly.

Pulls the fake “Obama is off topic!!!” card when stumped awwww

 

[Ridgerunner]

Kavanaugh? He was simply a deeply flawed individual who should have withdrawn his nomination.

Have you read any of his previous opinions? What flaws do you find in them?

Any Republican President would have been able to appoint two Supremes, so don’t argue that Trump is some genius because he is packing the Federal Courts with unqualified candidates.

Straw man. I never said that. But go ahead and demonstrate for us through their writings why Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are unqualified? Interesting that the Dems didn’t do that in the slander-hearing. They didn’t because they’re both qualified. Even the liberal ABA admitted that.

One problem with Trump supporters is they think Trump is doing things that other Republicans would not have done. That is simply not true. Rubio or Jeb or my favorite, Kasich, would have been able to appoint those Justices and judges, and would have championed many of the same policies.

None of them would have won. And if, by some miracle they did, the Dems would destroy them within the first year. The political system is no longer a civil discourse. It’s a blood sport.

ou know, Trump, but without the craziness and corruption.

Go ahead and give us the evidence of his “corruption”. The Dems couldn’t find any for their impeachment farce, so maybe you’ll do it for them.

 

[drcube]

The parties deny it, of course. Trump and Zelensky are the real “witnesses” and both deny that any pressure was put on Zelensky. That’s a shame, really. When the Vice President of the U.S. interferes in the administration of justice in a foreign country using aid as a cudgel, it should be rigorously investigated. But the Dems are good at creating a diversion like this impeachment farce.

It sounds like there are lot of witnesses to the call that weren’t allowed to testify to Congress as well as a lot of intermediaries and evidence that was not allowed to be presented as Trump defied Congressional subpoenas. As I have explained in the past, extortion victims are not reliable witnesses when they still need something from those extorting them.

It is interesting that you keep deflecting to falsehoods about Biden. It betrays the weakness of your argument.

 

[Aquinas11]

Market = off topic

Impeachment = on topic

Please abide by forum rules and your logic (anything tangential related is off topic)

 

[drcube]

Says poster with mile long Obama post

And that post explains why the repeated deflections to Biden are ridiculous, but there are those here that repeat the same falsehoods over and over again. It’s a shame, but necessary. Kind of like what you are attempting to do in your posts. Your entire argument is that Obama did something that has superficial similarities but very distinct difference to what Trump did, so what Trump did isn’t wrong. It is incorrect and a distraction from the crimes that Trump committed, but that is the goal, isn’t it?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Why do you not want Biden’s interference with the Ukrainian justice system investigated? Why are Dems so desperate to hide it?

The Dems could have called every witness they now say they want to call. They didn’t because they wanted to keep to their timetable and knew the “additional” witnesses didn’t have anything but their own speculation anyway, just like the ones they did call.

Despite Trump’s invoking privilege, the Dems could have taken those to court. Clinton did in his impeachment. He won on some claims and lost on others. The Dems don’t have “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Trump and they know it. They want more witnesses because they want more critical opinions like the fired Bolton and to use more taxpayer money to campaign through the medium of impeachment hearings and corporate sponsor funds provided to the Democrat media.

 

[PaulinVA]

Have you read any of his previous opinions? What flaws do you find in them?

I didn’t say he was a deeply-flawed jurist. I said he was a deeply-flawed individual.

Straw man. I never said that. But go ahead and demonstrate for us through their writings why Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are unqualified? Interesting that the Dems didn’t do that in the slander-hearing. They didn’t because they’re both qualified. Even the liberal ABA admitted that.

Read what I wrote. I said the Federal Courts, not just the Supremes. Trump has appointed many candidates that the ABA has rated unqualified.

None of them would have won. And if, by some miracle they did, the Dems would destroy them within the first year. The political system is no longer a civil discourse. It’s a blood sport.

Uhm, no. The 2016 Presidential election was about which candidate fewer people disliked. A real candidate like Kasich would have handily beat Hillary.

Go ahead and give us the evidence of his “corruption”. The Dems couldn’t find any for their impeachment farce, so maybe you’ll do it for them.

Let’s see, Trump University, Trump Foundation, Stormy Daniels, six convictions of associates in the Mueller probe, trying to hold the G7 at Doral, “Could you do us a favor”.

 

[dvdjs]

Market = off topic

Impeachment = on topic

Effects of impeachment on market = on topic.
Impacts of concers about market on impeachment = on topic.

Easy.

 

[dvdjs]

Why do you not want Biden’s interference with the Ukrainian justice system investigated?

It is an abuse of power to have political opponents investigated without real cause.

 

[Maximus1]

No idea what you are talking about.
But
Murphy is not the president who COULD AND DID withhold funds.
And
He is subject to discipline if he did something wrong.
More than one politician can be wrong and can suffer consequences. They don’t cancel out another wrong

 

[Maximus1]

Russia would not have helped Kasich

 

[Maximus1]

Absolutely it is hard to remove a president. There should be a full trial.

 

[PaulinVA]

I have tried not to reply to your comments any more however you stating Kascish would have defeated HC is both naive and ridiculously laughable!

Likewise. I normally have you on ignore, but it expired. Posts such as this are the reason.

There are dozens of articles like this you can search for.

Loading…

www.theatlantic.com

Loading…

www.thefiscaltimes.com

 

[Aquinas11]

Your entire argument is that Obama did

Ok i Got it

Pro Obama = not off topic

Anti Obama = off topic

 

[Aquinas11]

No idea what you are talking about.

That’s apparent

 

[Aquinas11]

Effects of impeachment on market

No you already said anything not identical to impeachment (Obama) is off topic

Let’s try to follow forum rules

 

[PaulinVA]

My post is not a n the least offensive.Ive realized you enjoy calling out and shaming other posters’ ,this is just another example.Iwill continue to ignore you as well.Have a wonderful day!

Uhm, yes, calling my position that Kasich could have beaten Hillary “naive and ridiculously laughable!” is indeed offensive.

On the other hand, I simply linked to two articles that showed that my position was held by many people at the time. I was not shaming you. I was simply defending my position.

Back on ignore. Maybe you should do the same for me.

 

[Maximus1]

Zelinski? If he said Trump was forcing him politically, he risks unthinkable consequences. That truth is so patent. In the Godfather, was Pantangeli " free" to testify however he wanted? I can honestly say I never met a person who didn’t know why FRANKIE FOUR FINGERS recanted his affidavit. And the same applies here.

 

[Maximus1]

Without knowing, I cannot fathom how it constitutes evidence of whether Trump abused power. Or didn’t.
I have been trying cases for thirty years and understand relevancy

 

[drcube]

Why do you not want Biden’s interference with the Ukrainian justice system investigated? Why are Dems so desperate to hide it?

There is no cause as I have explained previously.

Despite Trump’s invoking privilege, the Dems could have taken those to court. Clinton did in his impeachment. He won on some claims and lost on others. The Dems don’t have “high crimes and misdemeanors” on Trump and they know it. They want more witnesses because they want more critical opinions like the fired Bolton and to use more taxpayer money to campaign through the medium of impeachment hearings and corporate sponsor funds provided to the Democrat media.

The Democrats subpoenaed witness and evidence. Trump didn’t comply. That opens up a Obstruction of Congress charge. If Congress is okay with people ignoring their subpeonas, then the Senators should vote to acquit and make that branch of government even more subservient to the others. I’m sure Republicans will be fine with that until a Democrat is President.