Impeachment defenses

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,976
Reaction score
821
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I am here for you if you do friend. A hug would do you good. -- jim
I’m your friend Jim ! I didn’t like hugs until about my third GD show, smelled like patruli oil, lol.
So, how’s the impeachment going guys ? There must be something to talk about.
 
Last edited:

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
506
Country
llUnited States
[QUOTE So, how the impeachment going guys ? There must be something to talk about.
[/QUOTE]

In summary: Someone heard from a friend, who heard from his wife, who heard from her brother, who heard from a co-worker, who heard from a friend that they overhead part of phone conversation. It might have been Trump on the other end and he might have mentioned something about an investigation. None of them have ever met or talked to Trump though.
Many were confused if this was an Impeachment session or a different version of the REO Speedwagon song.

Oh, and some people in the state department do not like Trump's foreign policy, and they are weally, weally mad about it!!

MSNBC and CNN are reporting that this means Trump is doomed.
Some Fox News anchors are giddy.

Pelosi is now unsure if there will be an Impeachment vote.
Adam Full of Schiff, in a shocking and completely out of character development, told another whopper of a fish story.

That should pretty much bring you up to speed.
 

Chas

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
2,016
Reaction score
506
Country
llUnited States
That Biden guy, man, and is followers.....crazy:)

This is what happens when the accused literally announces what they’ve done wrong and his followers can’t comprehend it.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
726
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
[QUOTE So, how the impeachment going guys ? There must be something to talk about.
That should pretty much bring you up to speed.
[/QUOTE]

If all you listen to is State Run Media that is what they are saying but...

if you listen to ANYTHING else the actual people involved (IE: first person accounts) are giving a play by play of an extortion racket. tRUMP is front and center.

It is amazing, the conservative hive. HRC had 11 investigation with absolutely ZERO charges filed and she is still a traitor. tRUMP had one investigation and has 10 obstruction of Justice charges awaiting for him when he leaves off and HE is the innocent one.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
376
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
if you listen to ANYTHING else the actual people involved (IE: first person accounts) are giving a play by play of an extortion racket. tRUMP is front and center.
Top...are you including the actual hearings in your list of "ANYTHING"? Or just reports from the media?

I ask because I've only watched a very few tidbits here and there (the live feed...not talking head interpretations) and I don't recall anybody being a "first person" witness (i.e., somebody who was actually in the room/on the call in question).

So what person has testified that is an actual first person witness?

Thanks,
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
2,976
Reaction score
821
Location
Viet Nam
Country
llUnited States
I predict a surprise appearance by Blasey Ford tomorrow.
 

RandyT0001

Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Joined
Dec 5, 2016
Messages
528
Reaction score
384
Location
Memphis, TN
First name
Cary
Country
llUnited States
Colonel Vindman was monitoring the phone call for the NSC.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
570
Reaction score
435
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
It's amazing that the more the concrete evidence comes out about Spanky et al, the more his cultists go into black-is-white mode.
They know Trump did it; basically the white house doesn't even deny that Trump was demanding an investigation of Biden for military aid.

The Trumpers here are just being purposefully obtuse, and I don't even think Chas believes what he writes. Because if he does believe it, he really knows nothing about the matter.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,196
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
It's amazing that the more the concrete evidence comes out about Spanky et al, the more his cultists go into black-is-white mode.
In a few years, they'll be bombing government buildings and assassinating politicians. Because when White doesn't get its way, it turns to violence.
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,196
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
The full article goes into other facets, and compares our situation to the ACW's slave power reaction to impending electoral defeat. Quoted below are some of the beginning highlights.

How America Ends A tectonic demographic shift is under way. Can the country hold together?

Democracy depends on the consent of the losers. For most of the 20th century, parties and candidates in the United States have competed in elections with the understanding that electoral defeats are neither permanent nor intolerable. The losers could accept the result, adjust their ideas and coalitions, and move on to fight in the next election. Ideas and policies would be contested, sometimes viciously, but however heated the rhetoric got, defeat was not generally equated with political annihilation. The stakes could feel high, but rarely existential. In recent years, however, beginning before the election of Donald Trump and accelerating since, that has changed.

“Our radical Democrat opponents are driven by hatred, prejudice, and rage,” Trump told the crowd at his reelection kickoff event in Orlando in June. “They want to destroy you and they want to destroy our country as we know it.” This is the core of the president’s pitch to his supporters: He is all that stands between them and the abyss.
. . .
Within the living memory of most Americans, a majority of the country’s residents were white Christians. That is no longer the case, and voters are not insensate to the change—nearly a third of conservatives say they face “a lot” of discrimination for their beliefs, as do more than half of white evangelicals. But more epochal than the change that has already happened is the change that is yet to come: Sometime in the next quarter century or so, depending on immigration rates and the vagaries of ethnic and racial identification, nonwhites will become a majority in the U.S. For some Americans, that change will be cause for celebration; for others, it may pass unnoticed. But the transition is already producing a sharp political backlash, exploited and exacerbated by the president. In 2016, white working-class voters who said that discrimination against whites is a serious problem, or who said they felt like strangers in their own country, were almost twice as likely to vote for Trump as those who did not. Two-thirds of Trump voters agreed that “the 2016 election represented the last chance to stop America’s decline.” In Trump, they’d found a defender.
. . .
The Republican Party has treated Trump’s tenure more as an interregnum than a revival, a brief respite that can be used to slow its decline. Instead of simply contesting elections, the GOP has redoubled its efforts to narrow the electorate and raise the odds that it can win legislative majorities with a minority of votes. In the first five years after conservative justices on the Supreme Court gutted a key provision of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, 39 percent of the counties that the law had previously restrained reduced their number of polling places. And while gerrymandering is a bipartisan sin, over the past decade Republicans have indulged in it more heavily. In Wisconsin last year, Democrats won 53 percent of the votes cast in state legislative races, but just 36 percent of the seats. In Pennsylvania, Republicans tried to impeach the state Supreme Court justices who had struck down a GOP attempt to gerrymander congressional districts in that state. The Trump White House has tried to suppress counts of immigrants for the 2020 census, to reduce their voting power. All political parties maneuver for advantage, but only a party that has concluded it cannot win the votes of large swaths of the public will seek to deter them from casting those votes at all.

The history of the United States is rich with examples of once-dominant groups adjusting to the rise of formerly marginalized populations—sometimes gracefully, more often bitterly, and occasionally violently. Partisan coalitions in the United States are constantly reshuffling, realigning along new axes. Once-rigid boundaries of faith, ethnicity, and class often prove malleable. Issues gain salience or fade into irrelevance; yesterday’s rivals become tomorrow’s allies.

But sometimes, that process of realignment breaks down. Instead of reaching out and inviting new allies into its coalition, the political right hardens, turning against the democratic processes it fears will subsume it. A conservatism defined by ideas can hold its own against progressivism, winning converts to its principles and evolving with each generation. A conservatism defined by identity reduces the complex calculus of politics to a simple arithmetic question—and at some point, the numbers no longer add up.

Trump has led his party to this dead end, and it may well cost him his chance for reelection, presuming he is not removed through impeachment. But the president’s defeat would likely only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them. That fear is the single greatest threat facing American democracy, the force that is already battering down precedents, leveling norms, and demolishing guardrails. When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
726
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Top...are you including the actual hearings in your list of "ANYTHING"? Or just reports from the media?

I ask because I've only watched a very few tidbits here and there (the live feed...not talking head interpretations) and I don't recall anybody being a "first person" witness (i.e., somebody who was actually in the room/on the call in question).

So what person has testified that is an actual first person witness?

Thanks,
You do know they took his (LtCol V) deposition last week and he testifies Wednesday. He definitely was on the call and questioned it twice to the NSC legal office.

By your interpretation, THE Ambassador to Ukraine couldn't possibly be a first person account dealing in what was happening daily between the Ukraine govt., the State Dept., & the three stooges? Clue #1: the phone call was not 'perfect'. It was a shakedown and this has already been proven time and again. If it was 'perfect', why did the tRUMP admin try and hide the read out of the phone call? The phone call was over 10 minutes long but the transcript barely covers 2.5 minutes. Why was Yovanovitch fired?

Kent, Taylor, Yovanovitch, OMB personnel, State dept. personnel are all fact witnesses. Most of them have over 30 years of govt service through Republican & Democratic administrations. Did Ambassador Stevens testify during the Benghazi hearings? He would be the only person on the 'call' or did we use fact witnesses to determine the timeline of what transpired on that night? HRC testified during Benghazi. In fact almost every single person served with a subpoena testified. Has Pompeo (or any tRUMP appointee) testified? NO! Why?

Like I said up post, none of you guys would have sat idly by if this was the Obama administration doing this or ANYTHING at all to do with HRC.
 

JimWhite

Senior Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
376
Location
Newark
Country
llUnited States
You do know they took his (LtCol V) deposition last week and he testifies Wednesday. He definitely was on the call and questioned it twice to the NSC legal office.

By your interpretation, THE Ambassador to Ukraine couldn't possibly be a first person account dealing in what was happening daily between the Ukraine govt., the State Dept., & the three stooges? Clue #1: the phone call was not 'perfect'. It was a shakedown and this has already been proven time and again. If it was 'perfect', why did the tRUMP admin try and hide the read out of the phone call? The phone call was over 10 minutes long but the transcript barely covers 2.5 minutes. Why was Yovanovitch fired?

Kent, Taylor, Yovanovitch, OMB personnel, State dept. personnel are all fact witnesses. Most of them have over 30 years of govt service through Republican & Democratic administrations. Did Ambassador Stevens testify during the Benghazi hearings? He would be the only person on the 'call' or did we use fact witnesses to determine the timeline of what transpired on that night? HRC testified during Benghazi. In fact almost every single person served with a subpoena testified. Has Pompeo (or any tRUMP appointee) testified? NO! Why?

Like I said up post, none of you guys would have sat idly by if this was the Obama administration doing this or ANYTHING at all to do with HRC.
Geez...I just asked a simple question...and you went off the rails a bit. Oh well...
 

Brian W

Elder Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2003
Messages
7,216
Reaction score
1,196
Location
USA
Country
llUnited States
<Quoted from The Atlantic> But the president’s defeat would likely only deepen the despair that fueled his rise, confirming his supporters’ fear that the demographic tide has turned against them. That fear is the single greatest threat facing American democracy, the force that is already battering down precedents, leveling norms, and demolishing guardrails. When a group that has traditionally exercised power comes to believe that its eclipse is inevitable, and that the destruction of all it holds dear will follow, it will fight to preserve what it has—whatever the cost.
Considering that the republican party is destroying the protections it thinks white people will need to survive as a minority, they should be afraid. We all should be because when the president is above the law, all politicians will become above the law.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
726
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Geez...I just asked a simple question...and you went off the rails a bit. Oh well...
I didn't go off the rails. At least it was not my intention.

I tried to fully explain the opposite side of your question/ statement. You did not need to be on that phone call (just read the transcript) to figure out pretty quickly what was going on. Almost any Ambassador, except Sondland, can give a first hand account of daily events and be a very credible fact witness no matter how hard State Run Media tries to portray them as "4th and 5th hand accounts". The Benghazi investigations were full of fact witnesses. You, nor anyone else questioned their credibility or their loyalty to the USofA, period. Everything I am saying here is fact, not opinion.

I will put it another way. A family friend needs some money to take care of a problem. Your family says that it is okay to give it to him. You call him up and say,"you can have the money", but then you say "but I need you to do something for me first". The family is not in on this new deal so it can and should be viewed as it is just for your benefit personally. You friend really, really needs the money and your family does not understand why you have not given him the money already. They have already said to give it to him numerous times.

Would this not a clear cut case of bribery? Yes, it is. You are bribing that family friend. You could say "I gave him the money anyways and he didn't have to do what I only asked of him" but it does not change the simple fact that you tried to bribe him.


Jim, ever since I attacked you, when you first popped back up (and I was wrong), I have tried to become pretty even keeled. I do not want to be known as "that guy". I was not going off the rails, honest.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
570
Reaction score
435
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
The full article goes into other facets, and compares our situation to the ACW's slave power reaction to impending electoral defeat. Quoted below are some of the beginning highlights.

How America Ends A tectonic demographic shift is under way. Can the country hold together?
Kevin Drum, neoliberal and the one blogger I follow, wrote pretty much the same, the GOP slide due to demographics....

It explains why Mitch McConnell doesn’t care much about legislation of any kind but grimly continues to confirm federal judges: it’s his only bulwark against a future in which Republicans lose power completely for a decade or two. It explains why a formerly mainstream party not only voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 primaries, but voted overwhelmingly for him even though they had a perfectly normal field of competitors to choose from. It explains a multi-decade effort at voter suppression that has consumed the party even though it’s unlikely to put off the inevitable by more than a year or three.

Nonetheless, the Democratic party is going to need more than just demographics to be a credible political party. Parties divided into tribes aren't conducive to good government. I've always been a Democratic for the reason that the party at least will pursue some modicum of balance against powerful individuals and corporations.
 

TopT

Elder Member
Joined
May 2, 2004
Messages
1,999
Reaction score
726
Location
PA
Country
llUnited States
Kevin Drum, neoliberal and the one blogger I follow, wrote pretty much the same, the GOP slide due to demographics....

It explains why Mitch McConnell doesn’t care much about legislation of any kind but grimly continues to confirm federal judges: it’s his only bulwark against a future in which Republicans lose power completely for a decade or two. It explains why a formerly mainstream party not only voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 primaries, but voted overwhelmingly for him even though they had a perfectly normal field of competitors to choose from. It explains a multi-decade effort at voter suppression that has consumed the party even though it’s unlikely to put off the inevitable by more than a year or three.

Nonetheless, the Democratic party is going to need more than just demographics to be a credible political party. Parties divided into tribes aren't conducive to good government. I've always been a Democratic for the reason that the party at least will pursue some modicum of balance against powerful individuals and corporations.

Pretty much explains everything.

The Democrats really need to move (or stay) centrist. If they sway into the far left they are going to go the way of the Republican Party now.
 
Top