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:
Reading the actual statement (attached), it looks like aid was released on 9/11, and Zelenskyy never gave his statement because Trump dumped his own transcripts instead. Is this legally prosecutable as quid pro quo? It’s certainly enough for Congress to excuse a politically motivated impeachment, but also enough for the Senate to toss it out on grounds of being legally vague. Investigating the 2016 election isn’t a breach of campaign finance law; only getting dirt on Biden to use regarding the 2020 election would be, and dumping the transcript as a legal response to impeachment has already let that cat out of the bag.
 

Załączniki

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.
The fact remains that the impeachment inquiry is being held behind locked doors with Democrats leaking cherry picked testimony to the press while not allowing Republicans the chance to cross examine Ambassador Taylor. It's just impossible to assess credibility of Ambassador Taylor when the proceedings are being held behind closed doors. If this was public, Ambassador Taylor may be singing a some what different tune and if this goes to the Senate, he will have to justify his testimony along with any other documentary evidence. I doubt this will go the way Democrats think it will.
 
Breaking character for just a moment to tackle some out of character issues:

Guys you are seriously falling short of ensuring that every post contains the words: nigger, clinton, death, and squads.

Shape up. The last two posts didn't hit any of our target words and instead just had boring information and opinions.
 
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.

Which I recall was denied by the President of Ukraine. They were not aware that their aid was on hold at the time, meaning there was no element of quid pro quo. The transcript itself showed that Trump was more focused on the alleged 2016 interference, something pertinent to the Democrats as well. There was no element that suggested threats or withholding of aid, except for media talking heads blubbering that the line "do us a favor" sounded kind of mafia-like. And I'm not sure why I should give a fuck about Trump's tone, at this point. That ship has fucking sailed.

  • There is contemporary documentary evidence to support this conclusion, now backed by the testimony of the people involved.

We don't have any evidence. We have a statement by Taylor claiming that 'this is how it looked to me' which has been subsequently denied by Sondland. It's just more he-said she-said with subjective claims and no real hard evidence.

  • This behaviour is inappropriate and constitutes an abuse of the office for which it is proper that he be impeached.

Your interpretation of that behavior is flawed, and biased towards supporting Democrat talking points, as stated above.

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.

Bitch, what are we supposed to do? Play a game of Chinese Whispers? This is the call the whisteblower complained about! You seem to agree that Trump, in that particular call, made no statements asserting blackmail or a quid pro quo. So what the fuck are we supposed to think? This is, again, the call that the Whisteblower claimed was supposed to be dubious! So why are you bleating out the idea that the transcript doesn't matter? What else do we have to go on? Taylor claiming that it FELT off? Schiff's fucking fanfiction? Man, please.

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.

You can't blame people for being more skeptical of the Democrats over the last few years. Man, I voted for Clinton. But the last three years have been nothing but a lengthy, absurd meltdown where the American left has tried to shift the blame on to any and all outside actors rather than their own incompetence, and their studied ignorance of the sheer amount of disillusionment with the status quo that got Trump elected over Clinton, and required that Bernie Sanders be absolutely shafted by his own party for the sake of Hillary.

On a website dedicated to mocking others, why get so offended when cheap manipulative tactics are called for what they are?
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
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.

But how was Tramp blackmailing Ukraine? Wasn't Biden doing that to protect his son and then Trump asked about it? There was no exchange of "if you do this, I'll do this" in the transcript though.
 
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'.

Sure. Trump used blatant quid pro quo with aid to Ukraine to look into the Bidens. Half of the Trump supporters here don't even deny that. The transcript shows that, and now Bill Taylor confirms it. The only defense Trump has is lying that there was no quid pro quo, a lie even the closest members of his own administration can't keep straight.

White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted that they do it all the time in an interview and has basically pissed off Senate Republicans because the more he talks the more the lie begins to unravel (which is why Trump is going to fire him)

The reason lefties like me simply post articles about the impeachment is because its amazing watching conservatives attempt to bend reality to make each new twist in the case something that benefits Trump. We don't even have to SAY we don't like Trump, as any news article that reports on whats going on is taken as a hostile action automatically. This all stems from a fundamental disagreement on what the transcript shows. At this point arguing about it is pointless...Trump's base is set and so is everyone else. It all comes down to what those directly involved say, and so far with each new testimony it doesn't look good.
 
This thread is just endless, self-reinforcing repetitions of "muh transcript!" which for some reason you all seem to think is exculpatory

Perhaps because it's the crux of this shitshow to begin with and what was claimed to be in it wasn't, and people keep popping up saying that it was?

I think a lot of people stay away from A&H, because every thread is just "nigger, nigger, nigger!" and "Clinton death squads!"

Yeah that's totally not a gross misrepresentation or anything.
 
Sure. Trump used blatant quid pro quo with aid to Ukraine to look into the Bidens. Half of the Trump supporters here don't even deny that. The transcript shows that, and now Bill Taylor confirms it. The only defense Trump has is lying that there was no quid pro quo, a lie even the closest members of his own administration can't keep straight.

White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted that they do it all the time in an interview and has basically pissed off Senate Republicans because the more he talks the more the lie begins to unravel (which is why Trump is going to fire him)

The reason lefties like me simply post articles about the impeachment is because its amazing watching conservatives attempt to bend reality to make each new twist in the case something that benefits Trump. We don't even have to SAY we don't like Trump, as any news article that reports on whats going on is taken as a hostile action automatically. This all stems from a fundamental disagreement on what the transcript shows. At this point arguing about it is pointless...Trump's base is set and so is everyone else. It all comes down to what those directly involved say, and so far with each new testimony it doesn't look good.
On the other hand, I agree entirely. Trump is a cunt and that's exactly why I wanted him to win.

Four more years! I love this shit. Tear every one of these fags in Washington a new asshole. Trump is exactly what he told me he would be: my guy.
 
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.

Fuck off with that pearl clutching ivory tower bullshit.
You're entitled to your stance, infact if you believe in your stance so much, you should be able to voice it without fear.
@Ashy the Angel does. People pushback. It's called discussion.

Regardless, prove there's a whistleblower. Otherwise this is just another Steele Dossier.
 
Sure. Trump used blatant quid pro quo with aid to Ukraine to look into the Bidens. Half of the Trump supporters here don't even deny that. The transcript shows that, and now Bill Taylor confirms it. The only defense Trump has is lying that there was no quid pro quo, a lie even the closest members of his own administration can't keep straight.

Where on the transcript does it show that? This isn't fucking Tolstoy dude, there isn't a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. The only "evidence" we have of any quid pro quo was that the language sort of implied it, if you look at it from a certain angle. But given that Ukraine's President has absolutely every incentive to nail Trump to the fucking wall if he really was being blackmailed, but didn't, I'm not sure how much mileage we're meant to get from CNN saying 'well it kinda came off that way.' It's not a smoking gun, and that's why there's no impeachment.

White House acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney admitted that they do it all the time in an interview and has basically pissed off Senate Republicans because the more he talks the more the lie begins to unravel (which is why Trump is going to fire him)

Mulvaney also denied any quid pro quo in that interview. So I'm supposed to not believe Mulvaney when he says that, but I am supposed to be 100% confident when he says 'internal politics interacts with foreign dealings' that it MUST mean there's quid pro quo and Trump is blackmailing the good people of Ukraine.

The reason lefties like me simply post articles about the impeachment is because its amazing watching conservatives attempt to bend reality to make each new twist in the case something that benefits Trump.

Dude, no. Stop. We've seen this before, remember? Remember when we were just adamant that Mueller was gonna nail Trump to the fucking wall! That the evidence was clear and undeniable? Remember?

Shit, remember Benghazi? How it was going to bring down Obama and Lying Crooked Hillary too? Remember how fuck all came of that?

Calm down. Take a deep breath. And understand that this sort of shit is a pattern. It will never lead anywhere. It's just a nothingburger trumpeted by the opposition party to kick up dirt. I understand there's a near religious mania involved, that finally, this will be the end of the Bad Orange Man. But remember the people on the left who were also skeptical of Russia and Mueller? How you laughed them off?

It wasn't that long ago. Please. Calm down, and curb your enthusiasm, and view things more objectively. For your sake if no-one else's.

We don't even have to SAY we don't like Trump, as any news article that reports on whats going on is taken as a hostile action automatically. This all stems from a fundamental disagreement on what the transcript shows. At this point arguing about it is pointless...Trump's base is set and so is everyone else. It all comes down to what those directly involved say, and so far with each new testimony it doesn't look good.

You realize, that it's not an exclusive thing to Trump's base, right? That Democrats are also living in a parallel reality where they see the same thing as Republicans and conclude it means exactly the opposite?

Keeping in mind that all the testimonies on this so far are entirely run by the Democrats, behind close doors, with no ability for the Republicans to cross-examine or bring in their own testimony, why is it supposed to be surprising that all these testimonies support the Democrats's positions? When anything to the contrary, like Schiff pressuring Volker to say only the things that Schiff wanted said, is kept quiet and out of mainstream attention.

We don't even have a new testimony. We have an opening statement, no transcript, and Democrats assuring us that no, this is absolutely damning, trust us, don't ask questions. For the hundredth fucking time.

Ashy, come on. Be more skeptical. I'm not right wing, really. I'm not a bad guy out to hurt you or the Democrats' prospects in 2020. But you're entirely too trusting, and just coming off as either naive or disingenuous. You have to understand that there's more to this than just the press releases.
 
On the other hand, I agree entirely. Trump is a cunt and that's exactly why I wanted him to win.

Four more years! I love this shit. Tear every one of these fags in Washington a new asshole. Trump is exactly what he told me he would be: my guy.

I think the biggest flaw in this line of thinking with the administration is that in order for it to work, everyone around Trump has to behave the exact same way. Everyone has to be as ballsy and crude as him and that's been shown to not be the case, because his cabinet has been a fucking revolving door since day one. It seems like anyone who disagrees with him gets thrown out on their ass with a follow-up twitter rant as a parting gift.

Trump is holding his administration together through sheer force of will and abject denial of reality alone at this point. Things that would have sunk any other president roll off of him because he's learned that if you simply keep doing stupid shit sooner or later people will forget the old stuff from sheer media overload. Its like those old cartoons where the character would run over the edge of a cliff and as long as they didn't look down they could walk on air. Everyone around him is looking down and falling. He isn't.
 
I think the biggest flaw in this line of thinking with the administration is that in order for it to work, everyone around Trump has to behave the exact same way. Everyone has to be as ballsy and crude as him and that's been shown to not be the case, because his cabinet has been a fucking revolving door since day one. It seems like anyone who disagrees with him gets thrown out on their ass with a follow-up twitter rant as a parting gift.

Trump is holding his administration together through sheer force of will and abject denial of reality alone at this point. Things that would have sunk any other president roll off of him because he's learned that if you simply keep doing stupid shit sooner or later people will forget the old stuff from sheer media overload. Its like those old cartoons where the character would run over the edge of a cliff and as long as they didn't look down they could walk on air. Everyone around him is looking down and falling. He isn't.
I dunno, it seems like it is working pretty well so far. I'm a satisfied voter. And I'm also pretty okay with the revolving door aspect of Trump's administration. It mirrors exactly how he ran his campaign, which required different people for different jobs at different times. People forget that the whole reason Manafort even got the job was because he's known as a KILLER when it comes to party conventions. And that's exactly what he delivered to his boss, a killer fucking convention. No problem firing people when they are no longer useful.

All that other stuff sounds like other peoples' problems. You down with OPP?

Sorry Humble Shitposter, I edited.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
I still see all of this as shady but still likely legal. Like subscription services that require you to call to cancel, or payday advance loans, or mandatory arbitration clauses, all of the evidence points towards politics as usual, just blown out of proportion in this third season of the US Government Reality TV Show.
 
Where on the transcript does it show that? This isn't fucking Tolstoy dude, there isn't a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. The only "evidence" we have of any quid pro quo was that the language sort of implied it, if you look at it from a certain angle.

Trump doesn't have to literally say "I AM NOW GOING TO COMMIT QUID PRO QUO" for their to be quid pro quo. That's not even close to being how impeachment works in this country. He himself barely denies it. He goes on TV and rants endlessly about Biden and the 2016 election, and even says he wants China to look into it as well. And besides, you don't have to convince me. My opinion doesn't matter. The whistleblower's does, and ultimately the Senate if a vote is held.
Mulvaney also denied any quid pro quo in that interview. So I'm supposed to not believe Mulvaney when he says that, but I am supposed to be 100% confident when he says 'internal politics interacts with foreign dealings' that it MUST mean there's quid pro quo and Trump is blackmailing the good people of Ukraine.

False. He denied quid pro quo AFTER the interview when he realized he fucked up. He quite literally said "get over it" at first, then walked back his statement later. You're accusing me of not being skeptical but here you are literally swallowing a retraction from someone being PAID to be Trump's yes man.


Dude, no. Stop. We've seen this before, remember? Remember when we were just adamant that Mueller was gonna nail Trump to the fucking wall! That the evidence was clear and undeniable? Remember?

Shit, remember Benghazi? How it was going to bring down Obama and Lying Crooked Hillary too? Remember how fuck all came of that?
I don't think you've been paying very close attention to the things I post here, because I never put my eggs into the Mueller basket. I don't think boomers falling for propaganda counts as election interference. I'm not a #resistance #muellertime democrat. I'm a communist who finds all of this hilarious.

But remember the people on the left who were also skeptical of Russia and Mueller? How you laughed them off?
I didn't? I was one of the people skeptical of it. I still am. I think you've grossly misjudged my stance here.

Ashy, come on. Be more skeptical. I'm not right wing, really. I'm not a bad guy out to hurt you or the Democrats' prospects in 2020. But you're entirely too trusting, and just coming off as either naive or disingenuous. You have to understand that there's more to this than just the press releases.

Be more skeptical? There's being skeptical, and then there's letting your political biases cloud your ability to see what the hell is happening right in front of you. I don't sign on to the theory that Trump is a political genius who thinks 87 steps ahead and has a plan for everything. He's just surrounded himself with people so incredibly corrupt that they've somehow managed to make Joe Biden's corruption seem quaint and old-fashioned in comparison. I enjoy both seeing Trump gamer-shot members of his own party who don't tow the line and watching Dems realize that Hillary-era centrism and incrementalism is no longer a politically viable strategy. To be quite honest Trump has been the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in quite some time.

But really, any need to be skeptical is vastly outweighed by watching people who Really Don't Like Trump, Honest!!! turn into MAGAtards the instant an article is posted.

2019-10-20_21-47-39.png
 
I still see all of this as shady but still likely legal. Like subscription services that require you to call to cancel, or payday advance loans, or mandatory arbitration clauses, all of the evidence points towards politics as usual, just blown out of proportion in this third season of the US Government Reality TV Show.
Even if it is illegal I don't really care that much. Only a few illegal things will make me annoyed enough to get off of my ass for impeachment. So far I don't consider any president worthy of impeachment.

Most of the career types in Washington are doing illegal things. Until I can be convinced that there is a genuine effort to enforce the rule of law because of actual belief in said law, it will only ever be political theater to me. My fallback is always to support the president because the Legislative branch is a fucking joke. I support Donald and I'll support the next one too, just like I supported the previous ones.
 
Trump doesn't have to literally say "I AM NOW GOING TO COMMIT QUID PRO QUO" for their to be quid pro quo.

I'm sorry, I thought you said it was blatant.

The whistleblower's does

There is no whistleblower. And I don't mean in the conspiracy, "no such person exists" sense.

False. He denied quid pro quo AFTER the interview when he realized he fucked up. He quite literally said "get over it" at first, then walked back his statement later. You're accusing me of not being skeptical but here you are literally swallowing a retraction from someone being PAID to be Trump's yes man.

False yourself, Ashy. In the interview he denied that the aid denial was a quid pro quo.

But really, any need to be skeptical is vastly outweighed by watching people who Really Don't Like Trump, Honest!!! turn into MAGAtards the instant an article is posted.

Wyświetl załącznik 981323

 
Trump doesn't have to literally say "I AM NOW GOING TO COMMIT QUID PRO QUO" for their to be quid pro quo

Where was the trade then? The dude literally said 'hey can you look into this' with no threats or expectations in the call.

There's nothing wrong with that by the way. You had a guy on-stage on national television yukking it up about how he got his son out of hot water in a possibly (probably) illegal way, and Trump was asking for an ally to cooperate with a possible investigation on their end to get to the bottom of it.

It's like people don't get what the function of the executive branch is anymore.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Trump doesn't have to literally say "I AM NOW GOING TO COMMIT QUID PRO QUO" for their to be quid pro quo. That's not even close to being how impeachment works in this country. He himself barely denies it. He goes on TV and rants endlessly about Biden and the 2016 election, and even says he wants China to look into it as well. And besides, you don't have to convince me. My opinion doesn't matter. The whistleblower's does, and ultimately the Senate if a vote is held.

There was no quid pro quo in his statements. There is, thus far, no real evidence of any quid pro quo in any of his dealings with Ukraine. There are only claims being made that, if you look at it this way, it might be Quid Pro Quo. But I'm not fucking interested in attempting to divine intent or meaning, especially when we have millions of Democratic faithful mentally and emotionally invested in interpreting anything Trump does in the worst light possible. That sort of game is unwinnable. You can't claim you can credibly divine what Trump's intentions were when you're already operating on the notion that Trump is the Antichrist.

False. He denied quid pro quo AFTER the interview when he realized he fucked up. He quite literally said "get over it" at first, then walked back his statement later. You're accusing me of not being skeptical but here you are literally swallowing a retraction from someone being PAID to be Trump's yes man.


Did you listen to the interview, though? He denied that there was a quid pro quo during the interview. His statement was only that internal politics does influence external politics, and that it is inevitable. He was very clear that the aid had nothing to do with him wanting Ukraine to dig up dirt with Biden, that he wanted the issues around 2016 investigated (which is supposedly of interest to the Democrats as well) rather than dirt dug up on his opponents. And as we established Ukraine wasn't even aware the aid was held up so there's still no element of reciprocity here.

There never was, and the whole thing is still an exhausting nothingburger.

I don't think you've been paying very close attention to the things I post here, because I never put my eggs into the Mueller basket. I don't think boomers falling for propaganda counts as election interference. I'm not a #resistance #muellertime democrat. I'm a communist who finds all of this hilarious.

It's not hilarious to me. All it feels like is that they're going to try to drum up a cheap controversy rather than try to confront Trump on the issues. I would rather the Democrats attempt to revise and change rather than double down on Hillary campaign-esque horseshit where Pepe the Frog and the Alt-Right are our greatest boogeymen.

The Alt-right was, prior to the 2016 election cycle, not even a thing. It was frogposters on /pol/. Even now nobody can say what the Alt-right really is, except for some people now self identifying as it because the libs don't like it.

Watching Dems realize that Hillary-era centrism and incrementalism is no longer a politically viable strategy. To be quite honest Trump has been the best thing to happen to the Democratic party in quite some time.

But that's the thing. It's not. They haven't realized a single fucking thing. If anything, 2016, which was supposed to be a wake-up call, is instead just them doubling down. Instead of restructuring or rethinking after getting humiliated, they've elected to rely on sensationalism and hysteria. You say you were cynical about Mueller? Then you can't possibly expect me to believe that Ukraine isn't more of exactly the same boring shit. It's entirely a partisan issue.

Since Trump came to power, the economy is better, more people have more jobs, and wages are up. The Democrats have absolutely no answer to this, besides dangling things like Mueller or Ukraine in front of us, and it's pissing me off.

But really, any need to be skeptical is vastly outweighed by watching people who Really Don't Like Trump, Honest!!! turn into MAGAtards the instant an article is posted.

Wyświetl załącznik 981323

Well that's the thing, Ashy, that's the damnedest fucking thing. I've voted straight blue since I was old enough to vote. But I can honestly say nothing, nothing has done a better job of disillusioning me on the American left than these last three years. It's pitiful that Trump won, but consider the absolute state of the Democratic party to allow things to get to that point. To have no answers, even after three years, except for more media hypetrains.

Sanders won't win, there is no real movement leftwards. All the Democratic Socialists are doing is becoming the left's version of the Tea Party, and are about equally as effectual.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole