Jump to content

In Trump-Nixon impeachment comparison, Pelosi raises specter of resignation


Recommended Posts

Posted
On 11/19/2019 at 5:40 PM, bristolboy said:

You mean Trump didn't take charitable funds and use them for his own benefit? He doesn't contest that. And because thaivisa.com didn't open a thread about it, it's not significant? Boy, for someone who doesn't like Trump, you sure seem to have trouble with acknowledging even his most flagrant and sleazy violations.

There you go again, making things up. Where did I say I don't like Trump personally? I don't know him, so why would I? I don't like people I know personally that do bad things to me, but neither do I know Trump, nor has he done bad things to me.

He's a billionaire, and being a socialist I'd tax the <deleted> out of him, but that's not a personal dislike.

Far as what he has done, pretty normal stuff for a rich guy. Most keep it quiet though.

I suppose it's too much to hope that you and the other guy stop making things up in the future. 

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Becker said:

 

 

 

The question now is not whether there was a quid pro quo. There quite clearly was. The question is whether Congress (and Republicans in Congress, specifically) believes that is an impeachable offense.

 

 

Exactly. Given what previous presidents have done and not been impeached for, I doubt it, but time will tell. If that's the best the dems can get, IMO they'll have egg on their faces if they impeach him on that.

 

Personally, I wish they'd get on with it and impeach, but that, IMO, isn't the plan. Another year of this is going to make everyone barmy though.

I'd quite like to see what president Pence would do. The Dems should be careful what they wish for.

 

 

 

Edited by thaibeachlovers
Posted
17 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

Just read that the FBI are interested in interviewing the "Whistleblower" hmm... Imagine that

 

https://news.yahoo.com/fbi-seeks-interview-with-cia-whistleblower-121637359.html

Thanks for the link. Just love the survey results that 67% posted yes to impeachment. Even a random survey generated such a big endorsement to impeach Trump. The big picture may be worse and bad news for the 2020 election. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

So, the whistleblower has no part in this according to you, unbelievable.

Almost everything the whistleblower reported has been confirmed by others. What more by others who can offer first hand testimony. As i recall, the major complaint against the whistleblower was that a lot of what he reported was second hand or hearsay. So why would his testimony be necessary now? Even if he were a rabid partisan of the Democratic Party, what difference would that make?

  • Like 1
Posted

Maybe the most significant thing to come out of the testimony was Sondland saying that Trump and his confederates never pushed for and never discussed an actual investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike nonsense by the Ukrainians. What they pushed for was a public announcement by the Ukrainians that there was going to be an investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike allegations.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Almost everything the whistleblower reported has been confirmed by others. What more by others who can offer first hand testimony. As i recall, the major complaint against the whistleblower was that a lot of what he reported was second hand or hearsay. So why would his testimony be necessary now? Even if he were a rabid partisan of the Democratic Party, what difference would that make?

The FBI might have a different opinion.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

Nonsense.

 

It has been explained to you many times, Impeachment is not a judicial process, the norms of a judicial process do not apply.

 

If they did, Trump would be required to appear in person.

 

A fat chance fog that happening.

  • Confused 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

Nonsense everyone is entitled to face their accuser. They are AFRAID to name him.  This won't work and will backfire 2020 I would think.

Perhaps they don’t want to name the whistleblower in order not to put a real target on his/her back.

 

Regardless, multiple witnesses are now providing corroborating evidence.

 

Deal with it.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Sondland's testimony today along with the resultant false headlines in the media, confirms Trump's contention that this is all a witch hunt orchestrated by the Deep State and fueled by the main stream media.  Sondland today made Trump's case.  Time to move on, but Schiff and Pelosi will continue down the rabbit hole, most likely to their political demise.  

Thanks for not explaining how Sondland made Trump's case. Because he said that Trump never expressed any interest in actually having Ukraine investigate Burisma and the Bidens but only in having the President of Ukraine announcing such investigations?

Posted
2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

What they pushed for was a public announcement by the Ukrainians that there was going to be an investigation of Burisma and the Crowdstrike allegations.

 

Nothing to hide, Nothing to fear. 

  • Thanks 1
Posted

Most of the conspiratorial allegations about Burisma, the Bidens, and crowdstrike stem from John Solomon. It turns out that Solomon was allowed to bypass the usual editorial checks and sent his pieces directly to the Publisher of The Hill.

Here's a link:

Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill, has flown under the radar. But he's played a key role in the Ukraine scandal

"While Solomon has received significant media attention for his work at The Hill, Finkelstein has stayed out of the headlines, despite having himself played a crucial role in the saga. 

Beyond his relationship with Solomon, Trump, and Giuliani, Finkelstein was Solomon's direct supervisor at The Hill and created the conditions which permitted Solomon to publish his conspiratorial stories without the traditional oversight implemented at news outlets." 

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/18/media/jimmy-finkelstein-the-hill-ukraine/index.html

 

  • Haha 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...