Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mrad25 said:
They blew it out of the park. Pam Bondi hit a grand slam with it. They had every news outlet talking about it.
Click to expand...
Pam Bondi, the attorney general of Florida that gave Trump University a legal pass after he donated $12.5K to his re-election fund. Oh, yes, there are going to be many, many investigations after Trump is going to be out of office since this impeachment hearing is making it okay to pursue corruption at all costs. Pam better have some lawyers ready…
 
PetraG said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Your claim is that a cult is identifiable by the fact that members of a cult show
  1. NO tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.
Click to expand...
No, they don’t do it because even those in the GOP who dare to cross the President can expect to become a target of false attacks on social media, both from the President and from his “suppoters.” He demands fealty from others in his party, let’s just face that.
Click to expand...
Serious attacks on social media are all from the left. Criticism is something quite different, but attacks in the vicious sense of deplatforming, doxxing, slander, and encouragement of violence are virtually all from the left. Even the hoaxes to make the right appear horrible are from the left.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
mrad25:
But I do know if you don’t allege a violation of any crime (criminal or civil law ) and if you don’t allege the law was broken then i t’s simply NOT a high crime or misdemeanor . It’s pretty simple.
Click to expand...
But even the Constitutional law expert brought in by House Republicans to testify said, as noted by @HarryStolte:
HarryStotle said:
“As I have stressed, t is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power.
Click to expand...
What you have indicated is contradicted by the testimony Constitutional law expert brought in by House Republicans.
Click to expand...
Why not quote his words verbatim?
But I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”
Click to expand...
Let’s repeat that. Turley is speaking to the Democrats: "It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Serious attacks on social media are all from the left. Criticism is something quite different, but attacks in the vicious sense of deplatforming, doxxing, slander, and encouragement of violence are virtually all from the left. Even the hoaxes to make the right appear horrible are from the left.
Click to expand...
This is just false on the face of it. What about this Facebook post:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Did that Republican senator or did he not spread false rumors about Romney, another Republican, not to mention the Democrats? You tell me…that is, you tell me what son of Pelosi, Kerry or Romney ever had a job with a Ukrainian energy company. Which Romney son was that?

That’s what I was talking about. (As far as “encouragement of violence” goes, let’s think about who is subjected to the most attacks, the people that the right “criticize” or the people that the left “criticize.” I mean actual reported attacks. Do your homework and get back to me.)
 
PetraG said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Serious attacks on social media are all from the left. Criticism is something quite different, but attacks in the vicious sense of deplatforming, doxxing, slander, and encouragement of violence are virtually all from the left. Even the hoaxes to make the right appear horrible are from the left.
Click to expand...
This is just false on the face of it. What about this Facebook post:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Did that Republican senator or did he not spread false rumors about Romney, another Republican, not to mention the Democrats? You tell me…that is, you tell me what son of Pelosi, Kerry or Romney ever had a job with a Ukrainian energy company. Which Romney son was that?

That’s what I was talking about. (As far as “encouragement of violence” goes, let’s think about who is subjected to the most attacks, the people that the right “criticize” or the people that the left “criticize.” I mean actual reported attacks. Do your homework and get back to me.)
Click to expand...
Speaking of “just false on the face of it…”

The Facebook post does not say what you claim. It doesn’t say “…son of Pelosi, Kerry or Romney … had a job with a Ukrainian energy company.”

It says: “…energy companies doing business in Ukraine.”

See how easy it is to be mistaken?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
See how easy it is to be mistaken?
Click to expand...
OK, what did Romney’s son do in Ukraine?

And, by the way, who do you think started the rumor that Barack Obama was not born in the United States, and why do you think they did it?

More to the point, how do you explain that Donald Trump told Meredith Vieira on the Today Show that he had people in Hawai’i studying the matter of Obama’s birth certificate and “they cannot believe what they’re finding”? Do you have evidence he was telling the truth? I mean, is there a single person you can place in Hawai’i working for Donald Trump who found anything?

How about the self-described Trump supporter who spread the rumor that Kamala Harris wasn’t born here? That was 2019, so I’m not dredging up ancient history. Saying that someone running for President is lying about being born here is slander, the last time I checked, and serious slander at that. (Kamala Harris was born in Oakland, California.)

So, no, “serious attacks” on social media are not all from the left. People who self-identify as Trump supporters have been arrested for making death threats against Democratic lawmakers. I don’t think we can forget that Republican lawmakers were the targets of a shooting that injured five people and was undoubtedly intended to do worse.

It’s on both sides, including extremes on the right and left that go far beyond the major parties. I’m not making a case about which side is “worse.” I’m saying that social media is definitely a platform that people use to incite violence. Honestly, sports figures get death threats on social media if they lose ballgames. It is nutty out there. No, the right is not immune, and that is not a hoax. It is the unfortunate truth.
 
Last edited:
Turley said there was an Impeachable offense for abuse of power.
This is an offense involving the integrity of our elections.
 
PetraG said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
See how easy it is to be mistaken?
Click to expand...
OK, what did Romney’s son do in Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Tagg cofounded a capital investment firm, Solamere Capital, which has “undisclosed investments” in various parts of the world – certainly China and India – worth a reported $1 billion today. Since the investments are not open to scrutiny according to SEC filings and have a rather checkered provenance it may or may not be the case that Jack Murphy is incorrect or spreading known “falsities.” He may know something that is not available to the general public.
One of Solamere’s initial investments was in a North Carolina financial-services firm operated by former officials of a financial company run by Allen Stanford, who was later convicted of running a massive Ponzi scheme. These officials had come from the Charlotte office of the Stanford Financial Group, which had been closed by the feds for selling phony certificates of deposit.
Source: https://www.motherjones.com/politic...-new-private-equity-problem-solamere-capital/
Click to expand...
 
HarryStotle said:
Tagg cofounded a capital investment firm, Solamere Capital, which has “undisclosed investments” in various parts of the world – certainly China and India – worth a reported $1 billion today. Since the investments are not open to scrutiny according to SEC filings and have a rather checkered provenance it may or may not be the case that Jack Murphy is incorrect or spreading known “falsities.” He may know something that is not available to the general public.
Click to expand...
China and India aren’t in the Ukraine. You’re talking about an imaginary connection that could apply to you if you owned shares in an international mutual fund.

Jack Murphy wrote that Romney’s son was on the board of directors of an energy company doing business in Ukraine. That is very different than running an investment firm.

He didn’t just attack them for being on boards of directors for energy companies doing business in Ukraine, which is false on its face with regards to Romney’s son (I didn’t investigate the Democrats). He made an implication of wrong-doing with “Coincidence? No.”

In other words, he didn’t just falsely say Romney’s son was in the energy business as if it were an accusation. He implied that Romney’s son and the sons of the others were profiting in the Ukraine from the political connections of their parents. Those are very serious charges to make, and with Romney’s son the premise is soundly false.

When somebody starts a rumor that is an attack on someone’s reputation, it is the person under attack who gets the benefit of the doubt, not the person spreading the rumors. If someone wants to raise a question, fine–let them raise it as a question. Let them be open that it is a rumor. Let them be clear about what evidence they have that makes it legitimate to report what is only a rumor.

That ought to be the standard for both sides, wouldn’t you say? Raise the questions, fine, but be very clear when you have something you want to investigate but don’t have the evidence.

Oh, and in the President’s case, when you say you’ve got investigators finding things, you’d better be able to point to something they found. Otherwise, you’re also committing calumny.
 
Last edited:
Maximus1 said:
Turley said there was an Impeachable offense for abuse of power.
This is an offense involving the integrity of our elections.
Click to expand...
In other words, according the the FEC, “It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.” If a President were to solicit that by using the power of his office as leverage, then that would be an abuse of power. It is the power, which is to be exercised on behalf of the people, being used as a bargaining chip to obtain that which is not even legal to receive directly for free. Even if he were to solicit this kind of a thing as a favor without any explicit quid pro quo, it would still be illegal.

As the credit card commercial goes, anything that harms Joe Biden’s chances of defeating Donald Trump would be not only of value but “priceless.” Some things, mere money cannot buy.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
He made an implication of wrong-doing with “Coincidence? No.”
Click to expand...
That would be you reading into his words, again.

Coincidence, merely means they may have profited from their positions. It doesn’t entail wrongdoing, just as Trump suggesting – assuming that he did – that Biden’s work in Ukraine should be “investigated” doesn’t logically entail there was wrongdoing, only that it ought to be looked into.

Funny how the standard for Trump’s impeachment, according to the Democrats, is that he “intended” wrongdoing or abused his power by asking Ukraine to investigate, which does not amount to telling them to “find dirt” merely find if there was anything to it.

Perhaps that is what Murphy means by “coincidence,” to have the connections at least clarified rather than remain covered up.

Don’t we all seek transparency?

It appears that the assumption by the Democrats is that Trump is guilty of something and he must be investigated until something is found, which is why Democrats have projected that attitude onto others who are merely suggesting stuff that is covered up ought to be opened to the light.

Tit for tat, no?

Yet, there again is that presumption among Democrats that those on their side (Biden, et al) are innocent and therefore ought NOT be investigated (or even brought up in conversation,) but that Trump is guilty and ought to be investigated UNTIL something is found.
 
Last edited:
You’re saying that tweet was not an attack on the reputation of Romney, Biden, Pelosi or Kerry?

Honestly, that is how you read it? He didn’t ask if it was a coincidence! He said “No” it wasn’t a coincidence!! And in the case of Romney’s son, the original premise wasn’t even true!! (Again, I don’t have time to worry myself about the Democrats, as that is off the subject of whether Republicans who criticize the President are liable to false political attacks.)

There is not enough transparency in the skies above the Hubble Space Telescope to satisfy a desire for “transparency” such as you are suggesting. Anybody can throw out any false premise they like and say that it needs to be “investigated” and they get to run and hide behind a desire for “transparency”?

That’s a false standard and “funny” but anybody who has that absurd standard aimed in the direction of someone they support always knows it.
HarryStotle said:
Tit for tat, no?
Click to expand...
No. Stop this nonsense coming from both sides. It is corrosive and it is an offense against the truth, too.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
No. Stop this nonsense coming from both sides. It is corrosive and it is an offense against the truth, too.
Click to expand...
True, the impeachment hearing was that. So was the Mueller Special Counsel. Can’t blame Trump or the Republicans for wanting an equal shot at uncovering collusion or coincidences, can you?

Funny how now it is “both sides” offending against truth and causing corrosion. Where were you when the Mueller Inquiry turned into the Impeachment venture?

Let’s “stop it now” before something really untoward turns up. Is that what you mean?
 
Last edited:
Can’t blame somebody for doing something worse than what they claimed was an outrageous witch hunt?
Gee, let’s think about what could possibly go wrong with that line of reasoning.
At best it sounds like a conspiracy theory arms race. That’s particularly true now that I know that making up non-existent associations and then pretending to want “transparency” about them is fair game.
Why not just go straight to “have you stopped beating your wife?” and have it over with?
Oh and doing it against the other party is too narrow. This handy trick works against former business associates and members of your own party who no longer have your favor, too. Act like you don’t know them and then pretend you’ve heard shady rumors… you know, not that you spread vicious rumors, but you know “people are saying.”
Then complain about how unfair everyone else is.
As my grandma would say: what a piece of work. Yet people call those who won’t vote for that pro-abortion. The world has gone off the deep end.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly think that? Seriously? As soon as this is over, unless Trump is removed, the country goes back to life as normal. People into politics give wayyyy too much credence to these things. Many on this board follow it closely, but far more do not. Any threat this poses to Trump ends when the trial is over. November is an eternity away from early February, and the Democrats still have to have someone with the appeal, charisma, and funding to defeat an incumbent president with a super-strong economy.
 
To me, that is the most glaring thing and so obvious that no one seems to speak to. No one is stopping Bolton from having a press conference and saying whatever he wants. But selling his book is way more important than however serious he thinks his claim is. How do people not see this? I suppose with all the salivating thinking for the 20th time, “we’ve finally got him!”, ala Skeletor in every episode of He Man and the Master of the Universe, they can’t actually se reality for what it is and believe that THIS time will be different.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top