~~ PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT! || Millions of Impeaches, Impeaches for Me || House Impeachment Hearings OT ~~

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[chakoo]

3 hours ago, Spork3245 said:

Pelosi is suddenly for impeachment because Pence can also be implicated and she, as third in line, would become president. Boom.

Remember the time a few users joked about how this was the master plan to get president Paul Ryan. Good times... 

[skillzdadirecta]

26 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

I don't know anything about Stewart. But he said he has the report.

 

He''s a shill for Trump.

[osxmatt]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

I don't know anything about Stewart. But he said he has the report.

 

 

Now that Sean Duffy has retired and cleared a space, Steward probably jumps in to the Jordan, Nunes, Gaetz group.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[thewhyteboar]

The New York Times sucks.

[SaysWho?]

NPR:  President Trump cited concerns about corruption as a reason for blocking U.S. aid to Ukraine. But a Pentagon letter obtained by NPR undercuts that claim.

 

Quote

Earlier this week, President Trump cited concerns about corruption as his rationale for blocking security assistance to Ukraine. But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability."

 

The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine. That aid was blocked by the White House until Sept. 11 and has since been released. It must be spent before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

 

Quote

The Defense Department announced in mid-June that it would be sending $250 million in security assistance to Ukraine, which has been battling pro-Russia separatists near its eastern border with Russia since 2014.

 

But the White House blocked that assistance in July. That was prior to a phone call Trump made to Ukraine's recently elected leader, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

 

[thewhyteboar]

Here we go.

[SaysWho?]

1 hour ago, thewhyteboar said:

The New York Times sucks.

 

In their defense (not for their political reporting), they have great investigative reporters. I am REALLY good.

 

But politics-wise, they really do suck.

 

This tweet from her is getting traction from people wondering if she'll correct her old story lol

 

 

[Commodore D]

I see (or would like) this ending two ways: 

 

Trump is impeached, and the senate removes him from office and the GOP puts up someone reasonable to all like John Kasich.

 

or

 

Trump is impeached, but significant dirt comes out on the Biden family, crushing his chances at the nomination, it goes to Warren; Trump uses the impeachment based on outing a dirty player as a rallying cry and people hold their nose, because no one wants a “socialists,” and he wins a second term.

 

i would prefer the former, but the later wouldn’t bother me.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Firewithin]

Drag everyone down 

 

[thewhyteboar]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

I’d love to be one of the NYT’s phony midwestern “swing voters”

[Reputator]

26 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

Here we go.

 

Finished reading it. At this point it's pretty hilarious that the DOJ went out of its way to clear the President of wrongdoing, considering Barr was implicated.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Jwheel86]

Adam Schiff is getting too in the weeds over why the complaint wasn't turned over, this is a complicated matter for the DNI. 

[thewhyteboar]

[PaladinSolo]

 

[Greatoneshere]

17 hours ago, Massdriver said:

It's not about strength, it's about understanding how the public digests information. Many of the other charges are too complicated for the public to have the time to put into to understand. The Ukraine case is different because people can catch on quick. Soak the public in the Ukraine case. It won't confuse them. They will eventually catch on since it's more straight forward. If you throw a bunch of other shit at them right out the gate, they will get confused and distracted. Democrats need to focus.

 

Again, it shouldn't be about political theater or winning. It should have nothing to do with the American people - they'll understand what they understand - you still impeach on all possible criminal charges as a matter of legal duty, it's not up for debate. Anything less is not upholding the duties of your office that you have been sworn to. 

[Jwheel86]

Dems are blowing it. 

[marioandsonic]

16 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

Dems are blowing it. 

What else is new?

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Greatoneshere said:

 

Again, it shouldn't be about political theater or winning. It should have nothing to do with the American people - they'll understand what they understand - you still impeach on all possible criminal charges as a matter of legal duty, it's not up for debate. Anything less is not upholding the duties of your office that you have been sworn to. 

 

Impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. Choosing a narrower set of charges that can actually get the votes needed is better than throwing everything at the wall and giving people an out because the perception is you went too far with the charges. The goal is to remove the unfit person from office.

[Jwheel86]

Swalwell isn't helping, this isn't the guy to crucify.  

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Greatoneshere]

21 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

Impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. Choosing a narrower set of charges that can actually get the votes needed is better than throwing everything at the wall and giving people an out because the perception is you went too far with the charges. The goal is to remove the unfit person from office.

 

I disagree on the perception. I don't think it's some given that perception will be negative rather than even more positive if you hit the president with all genuine evidence of wrong doing. His financial crimes alone should be discovered and made clear. 

 

As far as it being a political tool and not a legal one - it's both, because the standards are defined in nature, thus it is essentially laws they are following to do the inquiry. I think I simply disagree that limiting the scope is more rather than less helpful. I don't think they'll ultimately limit it anyway (they certainly didn't against Clinton) but I think it's a bad move, both in terms of Constitutional duty but also politically. Pelosi has played this poorly up until this point, I don't expect a lot of shrewdness out of such a weak Democrat going forward. Somehow, despite the Ukraine charges alone being a lay up, I wouldn't be surprised if she bungled it anyway. 

[Jason]

Mr. @Engel?

 

[skillzdadirecta]

I just started watching... how exactly are the dems "blowing it"?

[Guest]

Just now, Greatoneshere said:

I think I simply disagree that limiting the scope is more rather than less helpful. 

Of course you disagree, you said winning doesn’t matter  

 

I would suggest reading Federalist 65 for a good look at why this is political and not legal.

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Jwheel86]

Just now, skillzdadirecta said:

I just started watching... how exactly are the dems "blowing it"?

 

They've turned it around some, but they got really into the weeds over why the complaint wasn't turned over and attacking the DNI who's in an impossible situation. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

"impeachment is what Trump wanted!"

 

This man is not well

[RedSoxFan9]

14 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Spoiler: they're still gonna says there's no there, there

who is still falling for the GOP’s bullshit?

 

 

ok now it makes sense

[skillzdadirecta]

6 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

They've turned it around some, but they got really into the weeds over why the complaint wasn't turned over and attacking the DNI who's in an impossible situation. 

 

But he's not in an impossible situation... I'm still confused as to why he basically went to the subjects of the complaint (The White House) FIRST despite the law saying he should turn the information over the Congress. I think pushing him on that is a fair point.

[Greatoneshere]

11 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Of course you disagree, you said winning doesn’t matter  

 

I would suggest reading Federalist 65 for a good look at why this is political and not legal.

 

Hahaha I mean that I don't think we can meet in the middle if you believe the American people need their news curated for them whereas I just want people to do the right thing regardless of what it means politically because accountability matters more. I agree that it is a political tool, my point is in practice it's often interpreted through legal means (since one is looking at evidence, etc.). We can get pedantic about the means but ultimately I care about what makes the most moral and ethical sense. I don't mean to imply it's solely a legal matter (that would have been indictment, as per Mueller's investigation, which this isn't) but cutting off narrative possibilities outside of Ukraine from the get go is not working from a position of strength to me.