Trump at brink of impeachment as U.S. House committee approves charges

[heybruce]

33 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

The left (including the Republican never-Trumpers) has wanted to oust Trump from day 1.  Why?  He hadn't done anything "wrong" yet.  Proof that since then they've only tried to manufacture credible reasons to oust him solely because they don't like him.  And have failed.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  And have failed again.  Are you guys impervious to pain?

 

Actually, the real reason for attempting to oust Trump is because he can't be bought and has campaigned on draining the swamp.  Those in the swamp are trying to prevent this from happening for obvious reasons.  That's what all of this is about in truth.  Of course this applies to those in the swamp and their political followers are simply fed a narrative which, being not so bright to figure out the truth for themselves, they go all in on.

 

I hope I haven't lost you in the complexity.

 

You think Trump is draining the swamp?  What leads you to believe this?  Is it his secretive finances?  The number of former lobbyists in his administration?  His steering as much government business as possible to Trump properties?  His lobbying for the next G7 meeting to be at a Trump resort?  Or maybe the number of cabinet officials who have left under ethics investigations?

 

Trump hasn't drained the swamp, he's made it his own.

[Tippaporn]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You think Trump is draining the swamp?  What leads you to believe this?  <snip>

Two words.  Barr.  Durham.

[atyclb]

22 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots.

 

quite possibly because they are one and the same person. it appears like additional posters are backing him when a different avatar replies

[Tippaporn]

22 minutes ago, atyclb said:

 

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots.

quite possibly because they are one and the same person. it appears like additional posters are backing him when a different avatar replies

You've noticed, too.  5555555555  I'm sure many others have.  Keeping himself out of trouble, methinks.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

You think Trump is draining the swamp?  What leads you to believe this?  Is it his secretive finances?  The number of former lobbyists in his administration?  His steering as much government business as possible to Trump properties?  His lobbying for the next G7 meeting to be at a Trump resort?  Or maybe the number of cabinet officials who have left under ethics investigations?

 

Trump hasn't drained the swamp, he's made it his own.

 

46 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Two words.  Barr.  Durham.

Once again you avoid the substantive part of my post, the factual part, while replying.

 

[Becker]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Listen, I had at one time linked to actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption.  I can't remember who the particular poster was but he had replied that it was all BS.  I thought his response to be incredulous as it was bona fide documentation that most definitely exists in the real world so I replied back asking him if he had thought that the documentation was created by the publisher of it.  He replied back, "Yes."  I asked again if he thought his claim to be true (no evidence provided, of course).  And he actually, unbelievably, doubled down on stupid!

 

Now, Jingthing, I ask you in utmost seriousness, what do you make of that in the context of your statement?

 

And please, don't be afraid to respond directly to me.  I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots.

 

"Listen, I had at one time linked to actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption.  I can't remember who the particular poster was but he had replied that it was all BS.  I thought his response to be incredulous as it was bona fide documentation that most definitely exists in the real world so I replied back asking him if he had thought that the documentation was created by the publisher of it.  He replied back, "Yes."  I asked again if he thought his claim to be true (no evidence provided, of course).  And he actually, unbelievably, doubled down on stupid!"

 

As you base Trump supporters aren't exactly great fans of facts and more often than not seem to live in your own twisted version of reality I'd be very careful calling other posters stupid, very careful indeed.

 

"Now, Jingthing, I ask you in utmost seriousness, what do you make of that in the context of your statement?

And please, don't be afraid to respond directly to me.  I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots."

 

Have you considered the possibility that JT has put you on his ignore list? You, and several of your fellow Trump fan club, certainly merits it.

So instead of your hard hitting posts leaving JT speechless he just ignores your ramblings

 

Personally I have only put one poster on my ignore list and that's because the poor thing started sending me nasty, pathetic PMs.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Becker

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Projecting again, Jingthing?  55555555555

 

Listen, I had at one time linked to actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption.  I can't remember who the particular poster was but he had replied that it was all BS.  I thought his response to be incredulous as it was bona fide documentation that most definitely exists in the real world so I replied back asking him if he had thought that the documentation was created by the publisher of it.  He replied back, "Yes."  I asked again if he thought his claim to be true (no evidence provided, of course).  And he actually, unbelievably, doubled down on stupid!

 

Now, Jingthing, I ask you in utmost seriousness, what do you make of that in the context of your statement?

 

And please, don't be afraid to respond directly to me.  I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots.

 

If you posted "actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption" before, you can do it again.  Why don't you?

[Becker]

24 minutes ago, heybruce said:

If you posted "actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption" before, you can do it again.  Why don't you?

I think we both know the answer to that.

[Becker]

Link: Guess Which Of Trump's Fibs Won Him PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Award

 

"A lie from President Donald Trump has been crowned “Lie of the Year” for a historic third time.

PolitiFact, a nonprofit U.S. political fact-checking site, announced Monday that the award for 2019 goes to Trump’s claim that the anonymous whistleblower reported his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky “almost completely wrong.” Trump’s conduct and requests on that call are now at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry."

 

Three years in a row Donny, well done! I'll have to edit your Greatest Achievement list:

- Not making any progress at all in keeping his promise that Mexico will pay for that big, beautiful wall. In fact, no wall is being built, period.

- Third president in history to be impeached.

- Winner of the 'Lie of the Year' award three years running!

[Becker]

Link: Rudy Giuliani Admits Wanting Marie Yovanovitch Fired To Probe Bidens

 

"Rudy Giuliani freely admitted he purposely tried to get former American Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired because he feared she’d get in the way of his attempt to find dirt on Joe Biden.

The former New York City mayor-turned-Donald-Trump-attorney told The New Yorker that he considered Yovanovitch an obstacle to be overcome while he went after the former Vice President.

Giuliani also recruited journalist John Solomon, who has been responsible for many of the Ukraine conspiracy theories being spouted by the right wing, to help smear Yovanovitch to the media."

[elmrfudd]

On 12/16/2019 at 12:19 PM, Becker said:

So if he was irrational back then he isn't a hypocrite now? Your mind obviously works in mysterious ways, just like your guy Trump. No wonder you're a fan.

Thank you. 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

Link: Rudy Giuliani Admits Wanting Marie Yovanovitch Fired To Probe Bidens

 

"Rudy Giuliani freely admitted he purposely tried to get former American Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired because he feared she’d get in the way of his attempt to find dirt on Joe Biden.

The former New York City mayor-turned-Donald-Trump-attorney told The New Yorker that he considered Yovanovitch an obstacle to be overcome while he went after the former Vice President.

Giuliani also recruited journalist John Solomon, who has been responsible for many of the Ukraine conspiracy theories being spouted by the right wing, to help smear Yovanovitch to the media."

I heard Adam Schiff admitted to wanting the President of the United States fired for interfering with his investigation of Trump. 
 

 

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

If you posted "actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption" before, you can do it again.  Why don't you?

I don't cater to your whims, heybruce.  Why don't you find it yourself.  Can't accuse me of not substantiating my claims as I had already done so.  Pay more attention as you haunt these threads consistently.

[Tippaporn]

3 hours ago, Becker said:

"Listen, I had at one time linked to actual, bona fide documented banking evidence regarding Biden corruption.  I can't remember who the particular poster was but he had replied that it was all BS.  I thought his response to be incredulous as it was bona fide documentation that most definitely exists in the real world so I replied back asking him if he had thought that the documentation was created by the publisher of it.  He replied back, "Yes."  I asked again if he thought his claim to be true (no evidence provided, of course).  And he actually, unbelievably, doubled down on stupid!"

 

As you base Trump supporters aren't exactly great fans of facts and more often than not seem to live in your own twisted version of reality I'd be very careful calling other posters stupid, very careful indeed.

 

"Now, Jingthing, I ask you in utmost seriousness, what do you make of that in the context of your statement?

And please, don't be afraid to respond directly to me.  I do notice you avoid responding directly to posters and generally respond only via quoting one of your compatriots."

 

Have you considered the possibility that JT has put you on his ignore list? You, and several of your fellow Trump fan club, certainly merits it.

So instead of your hard hitting posts leaving JT speechless he just ignores your ramblings

 

Personally I have only put one poster on my ignore list and that's because the poor thing started sending me nasty, pathetic PMs.

Didn't call anyone stupid.  It's a stupid thing to claim that bona documents were created out of thin air by the publisher of those documents.  Doesn't mean that the poster is stupid.  But you know that, Becker.  People play stupid at times, too.  Doesn't mean they're stupid.  Just means that they're playing stupid.  It's just another way of saying they're pretending not to know.  Nothing insulting about it.

 

Since when did you become Jingthing's spokesperson?  I hope he thanks you for it.  Feel free to add me to your list if you don't like what I say.  I personally wouldn't add anyone to my ignore list.  I'm not afraid to debate anyone and I don't worry about getting my feelings hurt.  No need for a safe space with cuddly stuffed animals to soothe my triggered feelings.  I control them; they don't control me.

[Becker]

36 minutes ago, mogandave said:

I heard Adam Schiff admitted to wanting the President of the United States fired for interfering with his investigation of Trump. 
 

 

Don't doubt it for one minute. It's obvious from your posts that you hear a great many things that are not true.

[Becker]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Didn't call anyone stupid.  It's a stupid thing to claim that bona documents were created out of thin air by the publisher of those documents.  Doesn't mean that the poster is stupid.  But you know that, Becker.  People play stupid at times, too.  Doesn't mean they're stupid.  Just means that they're playing stupid.  It's just another way of saying they're pretending not to know.  Nothing insulting about it.

 

Since when did you become Jingthing's spokesperson?  I hope he thanks you for it.  Feel free to add me to your list if you don't like what I say.  I personally wouldn't add anyone to my ignore list.  I'm not afraid to debate anyone and I don't worry about getting my feelings hurt.  No need for a safe space with cuddly stuffed animals to soothe my triggered feelings.  I control them; they don't control me.

"Didn't call anyone stupid.  It's a stupid thing to claim that bona documents were created out of thin air by the publisher of those documents.  Doesn't mean that the poster is stupid.  But you know that, Becker.  People play stupid at times, too.  Doesn't mean they're stupid.  Just means that they're playing stupid.  It's just another way of saying they're pretending not to know.  Nothing insulting about it."

 

A poster has asked for a link to these amazing "bona documents" that you keep referring to. Are you gonna answer him?

 

"Since when did you become Jingthing's spokesperson?  I hope he thanks you for it.  Feel free to add me to your list if you don't like what I say.  I personally wouldn't add anyone to my ignore list.  I'm not afraid to debate anyone and I don't worry about getting my feelings hurt.  No need for a safe space with cuddly stuffed animals to soothe my triggered feelings.  I control them; they don't control me."

 

My "ignore" list consist of only one sad and lonely individual that started sending me PMs. That's the only way anyone can end up on that list since it's impossible for any poster to hurt my feelings.

And if a safe space with cuddly animals works for you then go ahead.

Edited December 17, 2019 by Becker

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

Link: Rudy Giuliani Admits Wanting Marie Yovanovitch Fired To Probe Bidens

 

"Rudy Giuliani freely admitted he purposely tried to get former American Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired because he feared she’d get in the way of his attempt to find dirt on Joe Biden.

The former New York City mayor-turned-Donald-Trump-attorney told The New Yorker that he considered Yovanovitch an obstacle to be overcome while he went after the former Vice President.

Giuliani also recruited journalist John Solomon, who has been responsible for many of the Ukraine conspiracy theories being spouted by the right wing, to help smear Yovanovitch to the media."

". . . because he feared she’d get in the way of his attempt to find dirt on Joe Biden."

 

Opinionated tripe.  The author is making that up out of whole cloth.  Are you able to distinguish between opinion/fabulization and fact, Becker?  The first part of the statement is fact.  Not so the second part.

 

If Yovanovitch is corrupt, as some evidence seems to suggest, then, duh yeah, she's an obstacle as she's actively working against anti-corruption efforts.  That's a no-brainer there.

 

". . . Ukraine conspiracy theories being spouted by the right wing, . . . "

 

The author of this Yahoo! piece is obviously not an investigative journalist, nor would I consider him even to be a journalist for writing that piece of falsehood.

 

Smearing Yovanovitch?  I doubt she would need any help.

 

Rudy has been invited to present his findings to Graham's Senate committee after the "impeachment" trial.  So, do you seriously think he's bluffing?  Would love to play poker with ya.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by Tippaporn

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

Link: Guess Which Of Trump's Fibs Won Him PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Award

 

"A lie from President Donald Trump has been crowned “Lie of the Year” for a historic third time.

PolitiFact, a nonprofit U.S. political fact-checking site, announced Monday that the award for 2019 goes to Trump’s claim that the anonymous whistleblower reported his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky “almost completely wrong.” Trump’s conduct and requests on that call are now at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry."

 

Three years in a row Donny, well done! I'll have to edit your Greatest Achievement list:

- Not making any progress at all in keeping his promise that Mexico will pay for that big, beautiful wall. In fact, no wall is being built, period.

- Third president in history to be impeached.

- Winner of the 'Lie of the Year' award three years running!

That post is too funny, Becker.  My pick would be either Comey or Brennan.  It's a close call.

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Becker said:

Don't doubt it for one minute. It's obvious from your posts that you hear a great many things that are not true.

Is not the obstruction of congress charge because Trump refuses to cooperate with the “quid-pro-quo” investigation nonsense? 
 

Is that not what the impeachment is about? 
 

Is not impeaching the President the same as trying to fire the President?

 

Reading is FUN-damental!

Edited December 17, 2019 by mogandave

[Becker]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Is not the obstruction of congress charge because Trump refuses to cooperate with the “quid-pro-quo” investigation nonsense? 
 

Is that not what the impeachment is about? 
 

Is not impeaching the President the same as trying to fire the President?

 

Reading is FUN-damental!

"Is not the obstruction of congress charge because Trump refuses to cooperate with the “quid-pro-quo” investigation nonsense?"

No, see my final sentence.

 

"Is that not what the impeachment is about?"

No, see my final sentence.

 

"Is not impeaching the President the same as trying to fire the President?"

Sure, if that makes it simplistic enough to you. I can certainly see how that might be the case among you base Trump supporters.

 

"Reading is FUN-damental!"

Sure, but reading without comprehending is an exercise in futility.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Rudy has been invited to present his findings to Graham's Senate committee after the "impeachment" trial.  So, do you seriously think he's bluffing?  Would love to play poker with ya.

So he's not invited to the impeachment trial.????

 

He can present the information he has collected to the Senate after the impeachment trial: someone told me this, etc... No problem any more for him. 

Edited December 17, 2019 by candide

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I don't cater to your whims, heybruce.  Why don't you find it yourself.  Can't accuse me of not substantiating my claims as I had already done so.  Pay more attention as you haunt these threads consistently.

Remember me?  I'm the one who actually reads the links you claim substantiate your "facts", then point out your links don't substantiate anything.

 

In other words, you haven't substantiated Biden corruption or anything else of significance.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Becker said:

Link: Guess Which Of Trump's Fibs Won Him PolitiFact's 'Lie Of The Year' Award

 

"A lie from President Donald Trump has been crowned “Lie of the Year” for a historic third time.

PolitiFact, a nonprofit U.S. political fact-checking site, announced Monday that the award for 2019 goes to Trump’s claim that the anonymous whistleblower reported his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky “almost completely wrong.” Trump’s conduct and requests on that call are now at the heart of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry."

 

Three years in a row Donny, well done! I'll have to edit your Greatest Achievement list:

- Not making any progress at all in keeping his promise that Mexico will pay for that big, beautiful wall. In fact, no wall is being built, period.

- Third president in history to be impeached.

- Winner of the 'Lie of the Year' award three years running!

Increasing budget deficit, increasing trade deficit, no replacement for Obamacare....

 

Promises made, and made, and made...

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

". . . because he feared she’d get in the way of his attempt to find dirt on Joe Biden."

 

Opinionated tripe.  The author is making that up out of whole cloth.  Are you able to distinguish between opinion/fabulization and fact, Becker?  The first part of the statement is fact.  Not so the second part.

 

If Yovanovitch is corrupt, as some evidence seems to suggest, then, duh yeah, she's an obstacle as she's actively working against anti-corruption efforts.  That's a no-brainer there.

 

". . . Ukraine conspiracy theories being spouted by the right wing, . . . "

 

The author of this Yahoo! piece is obviously not an investigative journalist, nor would I consider him even to be a journalist for writing that piece of falsehood.

 

Smearing Yovanovitch?  I doubt she would need any help.

 

Rudy has been invited to present his findings to Graham's Senate committee after the "impeachment" trial.  So, do you seriously think he's bluffing?  Would love to play poker with ya.

 

 

 

 

"If Yovanovitch is corrupt, as some evidence seems to suggest, then, duh yeah, she's an obstacle as she's actively working against anti-corruption efforts.  That's a no-brainer there."

 

If you are going to libel another person you should provide evidence to support your claim.  That's a no-brainer.

 

BTW, this is from the AP, not the HuffPost.  Or course that is still legitimate media, so you will probably reject it:

 

"Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, says he provided the president with information that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump politically. Within weeks, she was recalled from her post".

"In an interview with The New York Times, Giuliani portrayed himself as directly involved in the effort to oust Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's, and he provided details indicating Trump's knowledge of that effort."   http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20191217/6d761c40-226a-403f-a46d-01e7d29dcff7

Edited December 17, 2019 by heybruce

[mogandave]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"If Yovanovitch is corrupt, as some evidence seems to suggest, then, duh yeah, she's an obstacle as she's actively working against anti-corruption efforts.  That's a no-brainer there."

 

If you are going to libel another person you should provide evidence to support your claim.  That's a no-brainer.

 

BTW, this is from the AP, not the HuffPost.  Or course that is still legitimate media, so you will probably reject it:

 

"Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, says he provided the president with information that the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine was impeding investigations that could benefit Trump politically. Within weeks, she was recalled from her post".

"In an interview with The New York Times, Giuliani portrayed himself as directly involved in the effort to oust Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's, and he provided details indicating Trump's knowledge of that effort."   http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20191217/6d761c40-226a-403f-a46d-01e7d29dcff7

She served at the pleasure of the President and chose to not cooperate. 
 

Good riddance.

[candide]

27 minutes ago, mogandave said:

She served at the pleasure of the President and chose to not cooperate. 
 

Good riddance.

She was supposed to obey her hierarchy. The State Dept stated they were not involved in it. What was Giuliani exactly? Was he in an official position or just Trump's personal lawyer? On which ground was she due to obey him?

 

She sure smelled something fishy, as Bolton and others did: no official investigation, no official instruction from her hierarchy. No executive privilege for her, etc....

You know, the kind of situation when anyone with a brain would say: "send me a written order, please".

Edited December 17, 2019 by candide

[Becker]

58 minutes ago, mogandave said:

She served at the pleasure of the President and chose to not cooperate. 
 

Good riddance.

She chose not to be corrupt(ed). Good to see that people with integrity are willing to stand up to the swamp king.

[HuskerDo]

On 12/16/2019 at 6:38 PM, heybruce said:

One of the articles of impeachment is abuse of power.  This is based on the bribery charge.  You didn't know that?

No, it's different. Pelosi stated there was bribery. Bribery could have been an additional charge but it never happened and they couldn't prove there was any bribery so they tucked their tails between their legs and scampered off to wherever they scamper off to when someone smacks their nose with a wet newspaper for being bad. 

[HuskerDo]

On 12/16/2019 at 6:38 PM, heybruce said:

It seems in your opinion, and the opinion of a number of Republican Senators who made it clear they will not be unbiased jurors, the guilt or innocence of Trump is irrelevant, as is the evidence against him.  That supports my earlier post.

You know Heybruce we all have different opinions and that's very obvious. In a year we'll know whose opinions were "more" right. None of us is 100% correct on everything. It'll work out as it will.

Edited December 18, 2019 by HuskerDo

[WalkingOrders]

Full text of Letter from the President of the United States Donald J. Trump, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/440152477/Letter-From-President-Trump

 

Edited December 18, 2019 by WalkingOrders
fix link