US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Pelosi will run that ball up the field. Watch her, completely stone faced, tell the media that the whistleblower was indeed Rep. Cummings!

I'm curious though if any other people have been Seth Rich'd lately.
Though if I'm honest, in this case, I don't think there is a whistleblower, at least one who isn't a nocturnally luminescent, dark skinned fellow with so-so creative writing abilities.
 
... So has anyone else noticed that the "Whistleblower" has just completely fallen out of every single headline over the last few days? Wasn't that guy kind of like, important? Where'd he go?

Must've ran off with my girlfriend, cuz' they're both imaginary.

The degree to which Trump nuking them from orbit with that declassified transcript right off the bat ruined this whole farce cannot be overstated. A year's worth of planned leaks, inside informants and subpoenas and FOIA requests passed back and forth in court, all claiming to know or demand the "real" contents of this "classified phonecall" was, hyping it all up as the worst scandal ever, all that negative press all throughout the 2020 campaign......ruined.

They have nothing, but, having already rented the venues for the show, they just weakly push ahead, claiming once again that the lack of proof and inability to intimidate anyone into testifying on record IS actual proof of something..... desperately trying to seed more BS whistleblower complaints to keep digging until something turns up....
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Well, there it is.

Bill Taylor may be blowing the Trump-Ukraine scandal wide open

The Post gets some new details on the testimony offered to the House impeachment inquiry by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine:
The senior U.S. diplomat in Ukraine said Tuesday he was told release of military aid was contingent on public declarations from Ukraine that it would investigate the Bidens and the 2016 election, contradicting President Trump’s denial that he used the money as leverage for political gain.
Acting ambassador William B. Taylor Jr. testified behind closed doors in the House impeachment probe of Trump that he stands by his characterization that it was “crazy” to make the assistance contingent on investigations he found troubling.
Taylor walked lawmakers through a series of conversations he had with other U.S. diplomats who were trying to obtain what one called the “deliverable” of Ukrainian help investigating Trump’s political rivals.
Taylor said he spoke to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, the U.S. envoy to the European Union.
“During that phone call, Amb. Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President [Volodymyr] Zelensky to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election,” Taylor said in the statement.
The Post reports that Taylor testified that Sondland explicitly said the military aid was “dependent” on Ukraine making a public announcement of these investigations.
Note that Taylor is testifying that according to Sondland, Trump himself tied the investigation of Burisma — the company on whose board former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter sat — to the military aid that Trump had frozen, and that Ukraine desperately wanted.
That phone call is also potentially important. We don’t know this for sure, but that could very well be a reference to the fact that in text exchanges with Sondland on Sept. 9, Taylor texted: “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
That has long seemed like a tantalizing lead, since it strongly implied that Taylor and Sondland had argued on the phone over Taylor’s objections to the quid pro quo. It’s now plausible that Taylor testified to precisely this point.
Meanwhile, Politico fleshes out more, reporting that people who listened to Taylor’s testimony were struck by his description of the scope of the ongoing efforts to compel Ukraine to carry out Trump’s political bidding.
One Democrat in the room, Rep. Andy Levin (Mich.), put it this way to reporters: “All I have to say is that in my 10 short months in Congress — it’s not even noon, right — and this is my most disturbing day in Congress so far. Very troubling.”
Still, Taylor’s apparent testimony creates a conflict of sorts with Sondland, who testified that “to the best of my knowledge, I do not recall any discussions with the White House on withholding U.S. security assistance from Ukraine in return for assistance with the President’s 2020 re-election campaign.”
Of course, Sondland’s carefully lawyered formulation there doesn’t exclude the possibility that there was discussion of withholding the military aid in return for assistance with investigating generic corruption in Ukraine, the cover story that Trumpworld has concocted to mask the real demand for material to smear Biden.
Indeed, CNN reports that people around Sondland are pushing back on Taylor’s reported testimony with precisely that fudging of “smear Biden” with “investigate corruption”:
Asked about Taylor's comments, a source familiar with Sondland's testimony said that Sondland cited, in addition to the investigations, that the aid may have been frozen because the Europeans weren't giving Ukraine enough and corruption in general. The source said Sondland was only speculating when he referenced the political investigations into the 2016 election and Burisma.
“He made very clear in his testimony that nobody would give him a straight answer” about why the aid was being held up, the source said about Sondland’s testimony.
And this returns us to what has always been the crowning absurdity of this whole affair. Again, a simple glance at the timeline shows that as early as May, both Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani and Trump himself had explicitly and publicly stated for all the world to hear that they wanted Ukraine to investigate Biden. Not generic corruption. Biden.
Everyone — including Sondland — simply had to know that “investigate corruption” or, even more obviously, “investigate Burisma” actually meant “smear Biden.”
In that context, now that Taylor is testifying that the funding was tied directly to this demand for investigations, we have the quid pro quo.
What’s evident is that this use of “investigate corruption” and “investigate Burisma” as a smokescreen for “smear Biden” will continue. And it’s possible that Republicans will conclude that this gives them just enough plausible deniability — or capacity to spread confusion and disinformation — to keep pretending Trump’s conduct was defensible.
But again, what we already know is impeachable. Whether there was a quid pro quo, Trump used the power of the presidency to leverage a foreign leader into helping him corrupt our democracy, by helping sustain a conspiracy theory to absolve Russia of sabotaging our election on his behalf in 2016, and smearing his opponent in 2020. The multipronged betrayal of our country is already extraordinary and damning.
The only question is whether this will grow even harder to defend for Republicans than it already is. Taylor’s testimony suggests it very well might.

So. Yes, Trump sought to use his office to eliminate a political rival, and he used powers delegated to him by congress to do it. It's an inevitability that he's going to be impeached now.

Whether he'll manage to summon the common decency to resign is another matter, he's exactly the sort of arsehole I expect to try to cling to power to the bitter end. I really think he may end up achieving the signal distinction of being the first president to be removed from office given how much he's been sabotaging himself with the very people he needs the support of.
 
Well, there it is.



So. Yes, Trump sought to use his office to eliminate a political rival, and he used powers delegated to him by congress to do it. It's an inevitability that he's going to be impeached now.

Whether he'll manage to summon the common decency to resign is another matter, he's exactly the sort of arsehole I expect to try to cling to power to the bitter end. I really think he may end up achieving the signal distinction of being the first president to be removed from office given how much he's been sabotaging himself with the very people he needs the support of.
One, that's an opinion piece from the National Laughingstock the Washington Post, not exactly known for its stunning reporting of late.

Two, so it's 'Taylor said that Sondlund said'? What is this, a game of fuckin' telephone?
 
Two, so it's 'Taylor said that Sondlund said'? What is this, a game of fuckin' telephone?

Remember, this is a hearing sparked by a "whistleblower" that has no actual knowledge of anything he, she, or they (my money is on they) reported, after the rules - which had always specifically prohibited that - were changed to make it permissible.
 
Remember, this is a hearing sparked by a "whistleblower" that has no actual knowledge of anything he, she, or they (my money is on they) reported, after the rules - which had always specifically prohibited that - were changed to make it permissible.
don't forget that the republicans will definitely remember that and pull it on them, gaslighting dems into exposing themselves.
 
Remember, this is a hearing sparked by a "whistleblower" that has no actual knowledge of anything he, she, or they (my money is on they) reported, after the rules - which had always specifically prohibited that - were changed to make it permissible.
And a complaint that has facts that are not, if we’re being technical, true - in the sense of “matching up with the reality of what actually happened”. But that’s ok, because the news has also decided that the fact that the report is untrue is proof that it’s true.
 
Well, there it is.



So. Yes, Trump sought to use his office to eliminate a political rival, and he used powers delegated to him by congress to do it. It's an inevitability that he's going to be impeached now.

Whether he'll manage to summon the common decency to resign is another matter, he's exactly the sort of arsehole I expect to try to cling to power to the bitter end. I really think he may end up achieving the signal distinction of being the first president to be removed from office given how much he's been sabotaging himself with the very people he needs the support of.

The third and fourth words of your article title make me press "X".
 
Well, there it is.



So. Yes, Trump sought to use his office to eliminate a political rival, and he used powers delegated to him by congress to do it. It's an inevitability that he's going to be impeached now.

Whether he'll manage to summon the common decency to resign is another matter, he's exactly the sort of arsehole I expect to try to cling to power to the bitter end. I really think he may end up achieving the signal distinction of being the first president to be removed from office given how much he's been sabotaging himself with the very people he needs the support of.
Why do you guys keep doing this? If you are reading the thread, you know exactly what everyone in here thinks, and what claims you have to disprove/prove to engage in a conversation on this issue. And if you are not reading this thread, then what the fuck are you posting for? Is it funny to you to see a page and a half of people laughing at you? Is that successful trolling in your book?
 
Why do you guys keep doing this? If you are reading the thread, you know exactly what everyone in here thinks, and what claims you have to disprove/prove to engage in a conversation on this issue. And if you are not reading this thread, then what the fuck are you posting for? Is it funny to you to see a page and a half of people laughing at you? Is that successful trolling in your book?

Well, considering this thread was devolving in to bizarre conspiracy theories I thought maybe a little bit of reality might be welcome. It's not like it bruises my ego to have a dozen mouth breathers here vote "dumb" and post "lul god emperor Trump iz innocent!"
When your hive mind is going off the rails to the extent that you're actively theorising impossible things like "the whistleblower doesn't exist" then I should think someone willing to wade in to the cesspit and give a contrary opinion would be something to be grateful for.
 
Well, considering this thread was devolving in to bizarre conspiracy theories I thought maybe a little bit of reality might be welcome. It's not like it bruises my ego to have a dozen mouth breathers here vote "dumb" and post "lul god emperor Trump iz innocent!"

You haven't proven guilt. How does that saying go, about guilt and innocence?


When your hive mind is going off the rails to the extent that you're actively theorising impossible things like "the whistleblower doesn't exist" then I should think someone willing to wade in to the cesspit and give a contrary opinion would be something to be grateful for.

I didn't say they didn't exist, I'm sure someone is set up to take the blame. I said they aren't a wistleblower. Please get your facts correct.
 
Well, considering this thread was devolving in to bizarre conspiracy theories I thought maybe a little bit of reality might be welcome. It's not like it bruises my ego to have a dozen mouth breathers here vote "dumb" and post "lul god emperor Trump iz innocent!"

My dude the last three years of mainstream reporting have been nothing but deranged conspiracy theories of TRUMP RUSSIA POSSIBLE COLLUSION. You can't possibly blame people for feeling cynical afterwards, or skeptical when the next big thing happens.

Or are you seriously convinced that Robert Mueller is going to bring the whole house of cards crashing down, just like they've been promising us for years? Or maybe Michael Avennati and the Krassensteins will ride in and save the day? You'll forgive me if I'm jaded, especially when Taylor's colleagues like Sondland are already pushing back on his statements.

When your hive mind is going off the rails to the extent that you're actively theorising impossible things like "the whistleblower doesn't exist" then I should think someone willing to wade in to the cesspit and give a contrary opinion would be something to be grateful for.

There's literally no reason to protect the Whistleblower to this extent. The only reason to do so is because they're afraid that exposing his identity would diminish his credibility, or that he is simply a fiction. Trump isn't Hillary Clinton, I'm pretty sure the Whistleblower will be able to avoid any suspicious suicides or even get a sweet book deal out of it if they're out in the open.

This isn't an impeachment hearing. This isn't even an impeachment inquiry, or else they could actually compel people with subpeonas. It's just more Russiagate shit.
 
Well, considering this thread was devolving in to bizarre conspiracy theories I thought maybe a little bit of reality might be welcome. It's not like it bruises my ego to have a dozen mouth breathers here vote "dumb" and post "lul god emperor Trump iz innocent!"
When your hive mind is going off the rails to the extent that you're actively theorising impossible things like "the whistleblower doesn't exist" then I should think someone willing to wade in to the cesspit and give a contrary opinion would be something to be grateful for.
Oh I am over the moon that you are sticking around to talk about this, I thought you were doing the same thing every other leftie has done in this thread - shitting out an article, saying 'drumpf is finished now!' and then fucking off back to chat or whatever. But you can't possibly think that that article is a 'dose of reality' can you? You aren't fucking retarded, and you know what path this thread has taken, so fucking engage asshole. Shitting out a link and going smugdog isn't wading into the cesspit and giving a contrary opinion, it's fucking SOP. Tell us your opinion. Use your own fucking words to tell us what you think so our 'hivemind' can move away from the 'conspiracy theories'.
 
Oh I am over the moon that you are sticking around to talk about this, I thought you were doing the same thing every other leftie has done in this thread - shitting out an article, saying 'drumpf is finished now!' and then fucking off back to chat or whatever. But you can't possibly think that that article is a 'dose of reality' can you? You aren't fucking exceptional, and you know what path this thread has taken, so fucking engage asshole. Shitting out a link and going smugdog isn't wading into the cesspit and giving a contrary opinion, it's fucking SOP. Tell us your opinion. Use your own fucking words to tell us what you think so our 'hivemind' can move away from the 'conspiracy theories'.

The facts are that:
  • Trump attempted to use his personal attorney to enact foreign policy to avoid scrutiny, which included withholding military aid to Ukraine until they agreed to open an investigation in to Joe Biden's son.
  • There is contemporary documentary evidence to support this conclusion, now backed by the testimony of the people involved.
  • This behaviour is inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of the office for which it is proper that he be impeached.
This thread is just endless, self-reinforcing repetitions of "muh transcript!" which for some reason you all seem to think is exculpatory when even the Republicans are having a tough time understanding why it was released. You all seem to think that he had to state out loud, in that particular call, that he was definitely blackmailing the Ukraine when in fact the implications were already clear to all parties.

I think a lot of people stay away from A&H, because every thread is just "nigger, nigger, nigger!" and "Clinton death squads!" To be honest, it kind of fascinates me. I don't really understand the sort of person who posts that kind of thing, and how they get that way. I also have a clear memory of a time when A&H wasn't that way, and I also wonder why the Farms community has changed so much. This thread and Epstein thread have been real hotbeds of groupthink, but I wonder how that group came to form in the first place.
 
The facts are that:
  • Trump attempted to use his personal attorney to enact foreign policy to avoid scrutiny, which included withholding military aid to Ukraine until they agreed to open an investigation in to Joe Biden's son.
  • There is contemporary documentary evidence to support this conclusion, now backed by the testimony of the people involved.
  • This behaviour is inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of the office for which it is proper that he be impeached.
This thread is just endless, self-reinforcing repetitions of "muh transcript!" which for some reason you all seem to think is exculpatory when even the Republicans are having a tough time understanding why it was released. You all seem to think that he had to state out loud, in that particular call, that he was definitely blackmailing the Ukraine when in fact the implications were already clear to all parties.

I think a lot of people stay away from A&H, because every thread is just "nigger, nigger, nigger!" and "Clinton death squads!" To be honest, it kind of fascinates me. I don't really understand the sort of person who posts that kind of thing, and how they get that way. I also have a clear memory of a time when A&H wasn't that way, and I also wonder why the Farms community has changed so much. This thread and Epstein thread have been real hotbeds of groupthink, but I wonder how that group came to form in the first place.
NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER CLINTON DEATH SQUADS
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole