Ukrainegate - Page 27 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Hindsite
#15040205
BigSteve wrote:The single quickest way to guarantee a Trump victory in 2020 is to impeach him in 2019.

Pelosi and Schiff and Nadler have been running their fat fucking mouths for far too long. It's time for them to put up or shut up...

If they called for a vote on the House floor, then the Republicans would have some more rights, like the subpoena pf their own witnesses. The way it is now in the committees they can overrule the Republicans on anything and the majority of the public will not know anything about it.
By BigSteve
#15040207
Hindsite wrote:If they called for a vote on the House floor, then the Republicans would have some more rights, like the subpoena pf their own witnesses. The way it is now in the committees they can overrule the Republicans on anything and the majority of the public will not know anything about it.


It's disgusting. As much as they've been yapping about impeachment, and how obvious the so-called "evidence" is, it should be a no-brainer to put it to a vote.

But Democrats are chickenshits. A level playing field scares the shit out of them...
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040214
Hindsite wrote:Then all of a sudden, she is all in for a formal impeachment inquiry before the whistleblower report was even delivered to Congress.

Well, I think the deal there is that Pelosi saw the report before it was filed. So she knew what it contained, and believed it to be true. None of them calculated that Trump would release the transcript. The fact that the transcript does not corroborate the report means the whistle blower is in effect hanging the Speaker of the House out to dry.

Hindsite wrote:Pelosi and the Democrats must be panicking about something related to a possible investigation in Ukraine of Democrat's dirty deeds.

Trump is not hiding it anymore. As Democrats try to shut down the investigation, it becomes clear that they are the ones with something to hide.

late wrote:Pelosi was reluctant because of what happened to Newt. She stopped resisting because Ukraine is a slam dunk.

Newt had Clinton dead to rights on two felonies as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Clinton was found in contempt and disbarred for his actions. Yet, he was still able to get out of the impeachment proceeding. Pelosi doesn't even have a violation of the law.

Hindsite wrote:If they called for a vote on the House floor, then the Republicans would have some more rights, like the subpoena pf their own witnesses. The way it is now in the committees they can overrule the Republicans on anything and the majority of the public will not know anything about it.

The Republicans can subpoena people to senate committees. So Pelosi's strategy has already backfired.
By Presvias
#15040216
They're both pretty bad, but Rump's 'sophia' is the most dangerous stuff in the world.

And let's face it, Biden doesn't stand a chance.. As 7 of 9 would say in Star Trek: You will Fail
By Hindsite
#15040256
DiGenova: Judge Napolitano Is A "Fool," Trump Did Not Commit Or Admit To A Crime

Former U.S. Attorney DiGenova said Democrats want any excuse to "scream and yell" and to impeach Trump. In an interview Tuesday night with FNC's Tucker Carlson, DiGenova said in "their bizarre brains," Democrats believe they did win in 2016 and this is payback. He said we are watching a political party devolve all because they want power.

"They are scrambling for a theme and a narrative," DiGenova said of Democrats. "They have gone everywhere from Russian hoax to Russian collusion and now they've come to this. And you may note today they said they wanted to see the transcript. And when it was announced that the transcript was going to be put out tomorrow, they said that really doesn't matter. We want to know about the complaint from the so-called whistleblower who by the way doesn't know anything about the call. He or she is completely anonymous and it's at this point serves no useful purpose other than to help them scream and yell."

"This is about power," DiGenova continued. "Democrats want to control the House, the Senate and the presidency. They think they should have won the 2016 election. They think in their bizarre brains that they did because she got more popular votes. They don't like the electoral college. They don't like due process. They don't like a lot of things in our constitution which is why they always want to change it."

"This is lunacy," he declared. "You are watching a great political party, historically the Democratic party, devolve into a bunch of screwballs because they want all the power. That speech today by Pelosi was an embarrassment for a Speaker of the House because it was mostly lies and mostly made up."

DiGenova weighs in on FOX News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano:

TUCKER CARLSON, FOX NEWS HOST: Now, I heard today in fact on our air I heard Judge Andrew Napolitano say what the president has admitted to doing is a crime. Is it a crime? You're a former federal prosecutor.

JOE DIGENOVA: Well, I think Judge Napolitano is a fool. And I think what he said today is foolish. No, it is not a crime. Let me underscore emphatically that nothing that the president said on that call or what we think he said on that call constitutes a crime. And even if he had said you're not going to get the money it would not be a crime.

I was watching Nancy Pelosi today as she struggled to keep her dentures in her mouth giving this statement, called this an official impeachment inquiry. It is not. The only way you can have an official impeachment inquiry is by a resolution being passed on the floor of the House calling for an impeachment inquiry and authorizing an investigation. That has not occurred. What she did today was a head fake to placate the nuts on her left.

I got this from realclearpolitics but when copied the reference link it came up as a blank space on my post. So I will give another link from FOX News.
https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dige ... es-a-crime
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040278
Obese Donald is unusually blatant and gaudily corrupt, but at a basic level he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for decades.
By BigSteve
#15040281
jimjam wrote:Obese Donald is...


Donald Trump is Michael Phelps compared to this tub of shit:

Image

Fucker's a real snappy dresser, isn't he??
By late
#15040331
blackjack21 wrote:

Newt had Clinton dead to rights on two felonies as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Clinton was found in contempt and disbarred for his actions. Yet, he was still able to get out of the impeachment proceeding. Pelosi doesn't even have a violation of the law.




It's worth remembering that the Clinton impeachment started over financial irregularities. That Newt knew Bill had nothing to do with it, Hillary did it. That, IOW, the impeachment was purely, and solely, political, a power grab.

After that failed, Newt went on a fishing expedition, which is not something a judge would have allowed. Because in a court that would be prosecutorial misconduct. Impeachment is supposed to be about actions taken by a president that violate the public trust. You know, like Trump.

After the impeachment stopped, Newt was unceremoniously booted out of Congress. He went from Speaker of the House, to a bum, in a matter of days. Then the rest of the Republicans went in hiding for a month, until the stench of corruption had passed.

Trump has violated a bunch of laws. But there is nothing in the Constitution limiting impeachment to existing case law. Try reading the Federalist Papers.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040424
jimjam wrote:Obese Donald is unusually blatant and gaudily corrupt, but at a basic level he’s the culmination of where his party has been going for decades.

To the extent that Trump is more a centrist Democrat at heart, yeah, that's probably true. The problem is that Trump won by winning blue collar working class voters and evangelicals that the Republican and Democratic parties ignored, so Trump's re-election depends on doing their bidding. Clearly, he knows that. They seem to love him.

late wrote:It's worth remembering that the Clinton impeachment started over financial irregularities. That Newt knew Bill had nothing to do with it, Hillary did it. That, IOW, the impeachment was purely, and solely, political, a power grab.

I wouldn't say it was a power grab. I think it was political, and much more of a payback than anything else. Remember, Lawrence Walsh, the independent counsel for Iran Contra, dropped a bomb a few days before the 1992 election (again, showing that these independent counsels were never apolitical to begin with). As I said before, Reagan was the first president since Eisenhower to finish two full terms. Even Bush got fucked over by his own deep state buddies. By that point, every Republican president except Ford had been investigated, and they had frankly had enough. So they hounded Clinton, who was reasonably dirty but used his wife as the bag man so that nothing traced back to him. That long history is why it's somewhat funny that she lost to Trump due to her dirty reputation, and Bill Clinton who was actually impeached and a rapist no less comes out cleaner than his wife. After what she did to Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton will be vilified throughout history.

late wrote:After that failed, Newt went on a fishing expedition, which is not something a judge would have allowed.

That would have been Ken Starr. Newt wasn't a prosecutor, but rather the Speaker of the House. The Republicans proceeded on the fruits of the Starr Report. It's no different than Mueller going after Manafort for taxes in 2012 that had nothing to do with the 2016 election. That's why independent/special counsels are a bad idea.

late wrote:Impeachment is supposed to be about actions taken by a president that violate the public trust. You know, like Trump.

Treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors--basically criminal behavior with direct ties to the exercise of office. Trump hasn't violated any law in the exercise of his office.

late wrote:After the impeachment stopped, Newt was unceremoniously booted out of Congress. He went from Speaker of the House, to a bum, in a matter of days.

Newt won re-election. He said he would serve for 8 years, and then he retired from the House. So he stuck around for the next two years and then retired.

late wrote:Trump has violated a bunch of laws.

Why don't you provide us with a Bill of Particulars, since Nancy Pelosi has neglected to.

late wrote:But there is nothing in the Constitution limiting impeachment to existing case law.

The Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers are pretty clear on what was intended for various constitutional clauses. For example, there is no limit on the president pardoning himself except for impeachment, because there were significant debates on that clause too.

late wrote:Try reading the Federalist Papers.

Done. Ages ago.

BigSteve wrote:Donald Trump is Michael Phelps compared to this tub of shit:

Actually, that's pretty svelte for Nadler. He could have been cast as Jabba the Hut back in the 1990s with minimal make up and special effects.

Image
By late
#15040427
blackjack21 wrote:

I wouldn't say it was a power grab.



Hmm, I did remember a couple of things incorrectly, however, Next tried to do what Speaker Reed did in the 1800s. He liked to talk about it...

It was a power grab.

Perhaps the most important thing to know about Newt is how he screwed things up.

"A number of scholars have credited Gingrich with playing a key role in undermining democratic norms in the United States, and hastening political polarization and partisan prejudice.[6][7][8][50][51][52][53][54][9][55][56] According to Harvard University political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, Gingrich's speakership had a profound and lasting impact on American politics and health of American democracy. They argue that Gingrich instilled a "combative" approach in the Republican Party, where hateful language and hyper-partisanship became commonplace, and where democratic norms were abandoned. Gingrich frequently questioned the patriotism of Democrats, called them corrupt, compared them to fascists, and accused them of wanting to destroy the United States. Gingrich furthermore oversaw several major government shutdowns, as well as impeached President Clinton in a partisan fashion."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newt_Ging ... larization
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040488
late wrote:Perhaps the most important thing to know about Newt is how he screwed things up.

Newt was a great leader, but not a great manager. His leadership won the Republicans the first House majority they had seen in 40 years. Again, you have to go back to Eisenhower to recall a Republican House majority. The Republicans were pathetic throughout the sixties and seventies. They were gaining a spine in the 80s. The fact that they hadn't won a majority in 40 years was a result of constantly taking it in the ass from the Democrats. That's what people like Bob Michel will do for you. Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.

I've noted that Clinton's presidency was significant for its legislative accomplishments. I would say all of those accomplishments involved Clinton working with Gingrich. Clinton burned his first two years up on Hillary Care, which went nowhere. Yet, Clinton crossed the isle and worked with Gingrich on Welfare Reform, which is what helped deliver Clinton a second term. Clinton even signed off on a cut in the capital gains tax, and got rid of CAFE standards and even the 55 mph speed limit from the Carter years. Clinton and Gingrich got a hell of a lot done--some of it seriously detrimental, like free trade with China and banking reform.
By Hindsite
#15040527
late wrote:It's worth remembering that the Clinton impeachment started over financial irregularities. That Newt knew Bill had nothing to do with it, Hillary did it. That, IOW, the impeachment was purely, and solely, political, a power grab.

That is basically the way I see the Trump impeachment. It started over the Russian collusion fraud and was purely, and solely, political, a power grab. It became a witch hunt fishing expedition that resulted in several guilty pleads, under pressure of bankruptcy from legal expenses, for lying to an FBI investigator. And a couple of convictions for crimes not related to the original Collusion with Russia allegation. The final Mueller report found no collusion with Russia.

An impeachment is like an indictment by a grand jury in which the Congress serves as the grand jury in which the Congress only need a simple majority to impeach. The actual trial is held in the Senate which requires a 2/3 majority to convict and remove from office. Right now the Congress is attempting to gather enough evidence and present it to their members (many of them already biased in favor of impeachment from before Trump took office).
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#15040572
Imagine someone accused you for years of serious, potentially capital crimes that were completely ridiculous on their face and their only evidence was their own paid research groups and partisans. Then after years, they get their day in court and they have nothing and are finally sent packing.

So they buzz off? No, months later they are doing it again, only with even less evidence this time. Political debate is over, as far as I'm concerned, bring on the deep fakes so that we can stop pretending that the majority cares about the truth.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15040600
One of the most distressing parts of the Trump nightmare is how few courageous patriots there are willing to stand up for truth and the Constitution.

Sondland is ultra rich and does not need his vanity job as ambassador- which was his reward for huge donations to Trump.

He can and should resign and testify. Or testify and get fired. He won’t, of course.

Add him to the list of cowardly sycophants and enablers “just following orders”.

My ancestors fought and died for this?

If the president doesn’t have to obey the law, why do I? :?:
User avatar
By Verv
#15040604
jimjam wrote:One of the most distressing parts of the Trump nightmare is how few courageous patriots there are willing to stand up for truth and the Constitution.

Sondland is ultra rich and does not need his vanity job as ambassador- which was his reward for huge donations to Trump.

He can and should resign and testify. Or testify and get fired. He won’t, of course.

Add him to the list of cowardly sycophants and enablers “just following orders”.

My ancestors fought and died for this?

If the president doesn’t have to obey the law, why do I? :?:


No, Jimjam, our ancestors clearly fought and died for replacement migration and government funded sex changes for anyone who asks [1].

Or, I guess, the personal enrichment of the President's circle due to the ability of them to leverage their connections to enrich themselves -- like Hunter Biden & the former Vice President.

But let us also observe that it is true that the US government has never had a perfect track record, and, perhaps more importantly, our ancestors did not believe in anything that remotely resembles what we believe now if you really are an all-in modernist.

[1] OneNewsNow
By Hindsite
#15040612
jimjam wrote:One of the most distressing parts of the Trump nightmare is how few courageous patriots there are willing to stand up for truth and the Constitution.

Sondland is ultra rich and does not need his vanity job as ambassador- which was his reward for huge donations to Trump.

He can and should resign and testify. Or testify and get fired. He won’t, of course.

Add him to the list of cowardly sycophants and enablers “just following orders”.

My ancestors fought and died for this?

If the president doesn’t have to obey the law, why do I? :?:

Because the President is obeying the law. It has been people in the FBI and the Obama administration that have broken the law by trying to frame President Trump. President Trump is in the process of fulfilling his oath of office to protect the Constitution and the rule of law , while the Democrats are playing partisan politics to grab more power to ruin our lives.

Ambassador Sondland is also fulfilling his oath of office to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Sondland was willing to testify before Congress; but he was prohibited by lawyers for the White House, because they were protecting the executive branch of government under the Constitution against a Congress of lunatic Democrats that were subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and the presumption of innocence under the law by denying the accused due process by conducting a kangaroo court disguised as an impeachment inquiry against a President they hate for winning the 2016 election and taking some of their power away.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15040617
jimjam wrote:One of the most distressing parts of the Trump nightmare is how few courageous patriots there are willing to stand up for truth and the Constitution.

What part of the truth or the Constitution do you think are being jeopardized here? Don't you think Nancy Pelosi should just cut to the chase and impeach Trump? You've been saying he's guilty all along. Why should any of this matter? Just impeach Trump and get it over with. We can hash it all out at trial in the Senate.

jimjam wrote:Sondland is ultra rich and does not need his vanity job as ambassador- which was his reward for huge donations to Trump.

Ok. How is that relevant?

jimjam wrote:He can and should resign and testify. Or testify and get fired. He won’t, of course.

An ambassador is the personal representative of the President of the United States to a foreign country. His duty is to represent the president. He is definitely subject to a slew of executive privileges. Even if he did testify, it's going to be the same thing as Volker: there was no quid pro quo. You'd be upset with that too. So why not just impeach? Why bother with any of this since you don't really believe it anyway?

jimjam wrote:Add him to the list of cowardly sycophants and enablers “just following orders”.

I'm sure everyone will be happy to testify when the Democrats have the balls to have a formal vote and grant both sides subpoena powers, or when they have the balls to file actual articles of impeachment. As long as it's just a political game, why should anyone take it seriously?

jimjam wrote:If the president doesn’t have to obey the law, why do I? :?:

Hillary Clinton doesn't have to obey the law, so none of us should have to. We should all model ourselves after Hillary Clinton. "How did these missing legal billing records magically appear in the residence section of the White House? I have no idea!" Sorry. We're just too jaded to believe anything coming from the deep state anymore.

Verv wrote:No, Jimjam, our ancestors clearly fought and died for replacement migration and government funded sex changes for anyone who asks [1].

They also fought to have US taxpayers pay for health benefits to people who enter our country illegally. I'm pretty sure Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin and Hamilton were all on board with that.

Verv wrote:Or, I guess, the personal enrichment of the President's circle due to the ability of them to leverage their connections to enrich themselves -- like Hunter Biden & the former Vice President.

Enriching themselves at taxpayers expense is actually not illegal. Most people in Congress do that. Selling their office or bribing officers is a criminal matter, however. That's why Biden is under suspicion.

Verv wrote:But let us also observe that it is true that the US government has never had a perfect track record, and, perhaps more importantly, our ancestors did not believe in anything that remotely resembles what we believe now if you really are an all-in modernist.

Yep. The founders would all die of heart attacks at the very idea of Hillary Clinton having run for president and pulled off the Russiagate scandal only to learn that a female Speaker of the House was trying to impeach the President of the United States for investigating the corruption of his political opponent. The whole idea of women holding high office and doing these things would horrify them. If they had a time machine, they would definitely set out to firmly prevent women from particpating in politics.

Hindsite wrote:Because the President is obeying the law. It has been people in the FBI that have been breaking the law by trying to frame President Trump. President Trump is in the process of fulfilling his oath of office to protect the Constitution and the rule of law , while the Democrats are playing partisan politics to grab more power to ruin our lives.

Ambassador Sondland is also fulfilling his oath of office to protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Sondland was willing to testify before Congress; but he was prohibited by lawyers for the White House, because they were protecting the executive branch of government under the Constitution against a Congress of lunatic Democrats that were subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and the presumption of innocence under the law by denying the accused due process by conducting a kangaroo court disguised as an impeachment inquiry against a President they hate for winning the 2016 election and taking some of their power away.

Volker also already testified that there was no quid pro quo, and the Democrats are refusing to release the transcript. Nothing about it needs to be kept secret or is a function of national security. They are simply withholding the transcript because it doesn't fit their political narrative.

I wish they'd quit pussy footing around and get to an impeachment vote already. I guess they know they are going to lose in the Senate and figure this will somehow hurt Trump and help them politically.
By late
#15040622
Hindsite wrote:
That is basically the way I see the Trump impeachment. It started over the Russian collusion fraud and was purely, and solely, political, a power grab.

And a couple of convictions for crimes not related to the original Collusion with Russia allegation. The final Mueller report found no collusion with Russia.



It started because Trump was dirty.

Mueller said that if he thought Trump was innocent, he would have said so.

Obstruction is also impeachable, and that is constant now. I'd have to guess how many counts, but at least a dozen.
By Hindsite
#15040630
blackjack21 wrote:Ok. How is that relevant?

Exactly, since politicians that get elected have been rewarding large doners with jobs for decades. Nothing unusual about that.

late wrote:It started because Trump was dirty.

If that is the case, why didn't they just tell him to take a shower.

late wrote:Mueller said that if he thought Trump was innocent, he would have said so.

That was not Mueller's job. He was supposed to prove guilt, because the law requires a presumption of innocence until proven guilty, not the other way around as you Trump haters want it for those you hate.

late wrote:Obstruction is also impeachable, and that is constant now. I'd have to guess how many counts, but at least a dozen.

Mueller could not prove obstruction either, since Trump had his White House employees cooperate fully with Mueller's investigation. And Trump answered Mueller's questions in writing by a sworn deposition. All Mueller could suggest was that Trump might have wanted to obstruct justice by asking others to relay messages about Mueller's conflict of interest of being turned down by Trump for the AG job.
  • 1
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 52

black21, you seem to be having a hard time connec[…]

The issue is money. Wrong! How much is spent on[…]

Good stuff! That would be a very long trip, that's[…]

Canada is the worst. We just have good PR. Satan […]