President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Neither represent anything that was said in the original political piece that I had put up.
Neither.

You need to reread my post then as it didn't mention of the image you shared.

Spencerfreeman

DubInMeath wrote: »

You need to reread my post then as it didn't mention of the image you shared.

Nor did I. Read the post.

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Nor did I. Read the post.

Try reading again with some basic English reading comprehension. You seem to have a habit of ignoring certain posts while posting stupid one liners.

Spencerfreeman

DubInMeath wrote: »

Try reading again with some basic English reading comprehension. You seem to have a habit of ignoring certain posts while posting stupid one liners.

You were quoting another poster who tried to invoke a wikipedia description of Brietbart to a political piece which I had posted from Tom Pool.
I referred to that political piece in my post to you.

Stop being tiring.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says someone who pushed the Russia-Trump collusion hoax for the guts of three years :P

That's nonsense.

Spencerfreeman

I recommend this one to all the virulent anti trumpers here.
It's about what's happening to Max Bloemethal of 'The Grayzone' for reporting on the Trump administration's failed coup in Venezuela.

Something real to get mad at Trump for.

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

You were quoting another poster who tried to invoke a wikipedia description of Brietbart to a political piece which I had posted from Tom Pool.
I referred to that political piece in my post to you.

Stop being tiring.

Actually no I wasn't, again try reading the post again, third time might actually be the charm.

Spencerfreeman

DubInMeath wrote: »

Actually no I wasn't, again try reading the post again, third time might actually be the charm.

Yes, was going to edit to say wikishyt but thought since it was about the same derailment you were participating in that I wouldn't bother.

Spencerfreeman

Spencerfreeman wrote: »

Yes, was going to edit to say wikishyt but thought since it was about the same derailment you were participating in that I wouldn't bother.

No intention of derailment, just pointing out that bitchute and the like tend to attract what my American work colleagues call basement dwellers, and plain out far right dicks. If it happens to attract some trump supporters hey that's just a happy coincidence.

Personally couldn't give a ****e if Trump gets another four years, or is impeached, other than if impeachment did happen it might be interesting to see what comes out in the aftermath.

Spencerfreeman

DubInMeath wrote: »

No intention of derailment, just pointing out that bitchute and the like tend to attract what my American work colleagues call basement dwellers, and plain out far right dicks. If it happens to attract some trump supporters hey that's just a happy coincidence.

Personally couldn't give a ****e if Trump gets another four years, or is impeached, other than if impeachment did happen it might be interesting to see what comes out in the aftermath.

I wasn't accusing you of causing it, it was just prolonging the train crash.

I agree there are lots of crazy guys and opinions on Bitchute. I just filter them myself. It's coming more to the fore because of the censorship on You Tube and will grow ever bigger as a consequence.

I too am ambivalent about Trump, I don't agree with many of his policies. I am however annoyed with the happy clappers, that just hate Trump 'cos.

It is a howl to watch alright. Trump is going to be re-elected because of this repeated and unsubstantiated circus of hate. The Dems will have no chance of beating him politically and may now continue lose for a generation.

I do think that Trump is trying to root out the deep state. He understands who they are because of his association with Roy Cohn who will have given him some knowledge of how they work.
Since they fired James Forrestal out the window it's been a sick world in American politics.

Outlaw Pete

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's nonsense.

Ah come on. Sure you were one of the chief cheerleaders that Trump had been compromised by the Russians.

For example in January you wrote:

mcmoustache wrote: »

Is there much doubt now that Trump is compromised by Russia? Remember, all it takes to be compromised by another state is for them to know the truth about an event that you have been lying about to the public. They don't need a tape of hookers píssing on bed in your presence - it starts with something small and unethical and gets steadily worse. To give a more concrete example, imagine taking a secret meeting with the Russians that you probably shouldn't take. You might lie about that meeting having taken place but the Russians know and they know that you don't want it getting out. That is leverage.

And that's only one example. There's also the Trump Tower meeting where the Russians coordinated their lies with Team Trump - they both gave the same story on when the deal "fell apart" but the Russian's have evidence that says otherwise. That's leverage. There's also the records of Trump's meetings with Putin, or the lack of them. If Putin has a record of these conversations, which lets not forget prompted Trump to confiscate his translator's notes, that's leverage (Trump - "We didn't discuss sanctions". Putin - "Sure, we discussed sanctions").

Those are just a few obvious examples of leverage that the Russians could have over Trump but what's the point of leverage unless you get Trump to act in the interest of Russians against the interest of the United States? The Russians want a lot of things but the main things that they want are a weakening of the transatlantic alliance in the long run and removal of sanctions in the short run. If Trump were compromised, how would we expect him to behave in relation to NATO and more broadly, the US's transatlantic allies? How might his administration implement sanctions that were almost unanimous and popular?

We already know how he behaves towards NATO and traditional allies and we know that he tried to remove sanctions early on and then slow-walked more and even now he's trying to get Oleg Fúcking Deripaska off the sanctions list. These are just two areas where Trump does things in Russia's interests and not in the USA's and there are plenty of others.

So this guy has done plenty to be compromised and behaves like someone who has been compromised.

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

Whistleblower is happy to answer any questions that don’t compromise their identity

Yes written questions - well, that ain't good enough. Body language is important, as is the ability to immediately follow up on questions.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding. Rhetorical questions of course as we already know.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes written questions - well, that ain't good enough. Body language is important, as is the ability to immediately follow up on questions.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding. Rhetorical questions of course as we already know.

You realize Trump responded to Mueller with written questions correct? And that was like getting blood from a stone, it was litigated frivolously.

duploelabs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes written questions - well, that ain't good enough. Body language is important, as is the ability to immediately follow up on questions.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding. Rhetorical questions of course as we already know.

I hope you apply the same standard when Trump is called to give witness

MadYaker

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yes written questions - well, that ain't good enough. Body language is important, as is the ability to immediately follow up on questions.

What are they afraid of? What are they hiding. Rhetorical questions of course as we already know.

So John Bolton refuses to testify and that's great. Whistleblower agrees to answer written questions and thats not good enough. It's hard to take anyone with such bias seriously.

You realise Trump responding to the Mueller inquiry via written questions, I'm guessing you think that wasn't good enough either?

Penn

I don't think you guys understand Outlaw Pete's point. He's saying that it's fine when Trump does it because reasons, but not okay when anyone else does it.

I think he's basing that on the old adage by a wise philosopher; "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Outlaw Pete

Overheal wrote: »

You realize Trump responded to Mueller with written questions correct?.

Penn wrote: »

He's saying that it's fine when Trump does it because reasons, but not okay when anyone else does it.

MadYaker wrote: »

Whistleblower agrees to answer written questions and thats not good enough. It's hard to take anyone with such bias seriously.

Comparing pears with bananas there, folks.

The Whistleblower is only avoiding being questioned in person because they don't want to be exposed as someone with an agenda and of course, also revealing that intelligence officials tasked them. They are the ones that came forward but now suddenly they don't want to talk? Give me a break.

As for those that are choosing not to give evidence, it would depend on their reasoning on whether I support them or not. Democrats have their thumb on the scales of justice and so it's understandable that the administration should instruct others not to partake it what amounts to little more than a kangaroo court.

You realise Trump responding to the Mueller inquiry via written questions, I'm guessing you think that wasn't good enough either?

As is his right. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS plead the 5th. Did any of you condemn that? Course not.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Comparing pears with bananas there, folks.

The Whistleblower is only avoiding being questioned in person because they don't want to be exposed as someone with an agenda and of course, also revealing that intelligence officials tasked them. They are the ones that came forward but now suddenly they don't want to talk? Give me a break.

Or maybe because they fear their identities will be leaked just like Trump has already implied they should be, which amounts to witness intimidation and violations of the whistleblower act from what I understand, and pretty much becomes obstruction of justice.

You're pushing the idea that the whistleblowers "have an agenda and were tasked by intelligence officials", but have no proof to corroborate that. You're just parroting Trump's accusations (like you parrot every other short slogan "No quid pro quo, nothing burger, kangaroo court" etc) because if you actually have to drill into the facts, you got nothing, so you're attacking the whistleblowers rather than deny anything the whistleblowers have come forward with. What have the whistleblowers said which is demonstrably false?

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

You're just parroting Trump's accusations (like you parrot every other short slogan "No quid pro quo, nothing burger, kangaroo court" etc) because if you actually have to drill into the facts, you got nothing, so you're attacking the whistleblowers rather than deny anything the whistleblowers have come forward with.

I'm not parroting Trump as I have expressed these views long before Trump did, as have others. If anything he parrots what he reads on Twitter.

In fact I named them in this post three weeks ago given it was obvious who they were.

What have the whistleblowers said which is demonstrably false?

Again, I went through the "whistleblowers" complaint in this post and pointed out what was false.

osarusan

We have only seen an edited and reduced version of the call transcript though, haven't we? A 10-minute version of a 30-minute call, or something like that?

If that is true, then claims made by the whistleblower, who apparently listened to the entire call, can't really be proven false just by looking at the edited version which was made public.

Or have I got it wrong about only an edited version of the transcript being released?

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, I went through the "whistleblowers" complaint in this post and pointed out what was false.

And other people on the call have since testified that there was quid pro quo, and Trump was using the aid to pressure Zelensky to announce an investigation into Burisma. I think Sondland even had to go and correct part of his testimony.

Most of what you've outlined isn't "demonstrably false", as it's subjective. The whistleblower is saying from their understanding of the situation, that Trump was pressuring Zelensky to open an investigation into Biden/Burisma. Just because Trump didn't say during the call "I'm pressuring you to open an investigation into Biden/Burisma" does not mean it wasn't being implied/suggested, especially with the unjustified withholding of the military aid. Hence the investigation by the House Committees and the calling of witnesses to testify, to establish the truth. Just because you reject it as a "kangaroo court" does not mean it's not entirely justified in its premise. And as with your claim about the whistleblower, if Trump et al have nothing to hide, they should have no issue with testifying. I mean all they have to do is go in, tell the truth, and the Dems will have nothing, right?

Cody montana

osarusan wrote: »

We have only seen an edited and reduced version of the call transcript though, haven't we? A 10-minute version of a 30-minute call, or something like that?

If that is true, then claims made by the whistleblower, who apparently listened to the entire call, can't really be proven false just by looking at the edited version which was made public.

Or have I got it wrong about only an edited version of the transcript being released?

One of the witnesses said parts of it were omitted!

Do they think we’re stupid to believe that this was the full transcript?

Outlaw Pete

Penn wrote: »

And other people on the call have since testified that there was quid pro quo, and Trump was using the aid to pressure Zelensky to announce an investigation into Burisma. I think Sondland even had to go and correct part of his testimony.

Sure, but they are just inferences and inferences might satisfy the democrats but it won't satisfy the Senate.

Most of what you've outlined isn't "demonstrably false", as it's subjective.

That's absolutely not true. For example he claims multiple times that "pressure" was used but it wasn't and no reasonable person could infer that Trump pressured Zelensky on that call.

He also cited New York Times articles in the complaint to back up his assertions but the articles had no basis for the claims they were making. Some whistleblower. He also claimed Trump solicited interference from Ukraine into the 2020 U.S. election but again, demonstrably false, the 2020 election never came up and to suggest that claim is true purely because one of the Bidens might be the Democrat candidate in 2020 is a joke.

The whistleblower is saying from their understanding of the situation, that Trump was pressuring Zelensky to open an investigation into Biden/Burisma. Just because Trump didn't say during the call "I'm pressuring you to open an investigation into Biden/Burisma" does not mean it wasn't being implied/suggested..

Nobody is saying he has to explicitly say that but for heaven sake, there has to reasonable grounds for making such a claim. An opinion based on fcuk all doesn't cut it. Trump even invited Zelensky to the White House and yet we have some on the left saying the call was an extortion attempt and a mafioso shakdown. It beggars belief.

especially with the unjustified withholding of the military aid.

All evidence tells us that Ukraine were unaware there was a hold up at the time and yes I'm aware there have been claims made of otherwise, but even so, Trump as POTUS has the right to set foreign policy and none of you have an issue the Obama administration holding up aid until a prosecutor was fired, so why Trump until alleged corruption is investigated?

Oh I know, there was International support for corruption in Ukraine to be tackled at the time, but what makes you all think that has changed? Not that the US Administration should need it mind. Trump sets foreign policy now, not the brat holdovers who think they should get a say.

Just because you reject it as a "kangaroo court" does not mean it's not entirely justified in its premise.

Impeaching a president should have bipartisan support and the only vote currently which does, is not to impeach him given that two democrats voted against it.

And as with your claim about the whistleblower, if Trump et al have nothing to hide, they should have no issue with testifying. I mean all they have to do is go in, tell the truth, and the Dems will have nothing, right?

No, not in this situation, as it is designed to be used as a political tool the way it is set up. Trump should have representation and Schiff should not be vetoing who republicans get to call as witnesses. They are leaking what suits their narrative and that is damaging the administration. You really think they should be happy to partake in this show?

Had republicans done this to Obama you would not approve of it. No chance.

Penn

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Had republicans done this to Obama you would not approve of it. No chance.

I would.

SJW Lover

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah come on. Sure you were one of the chief cheerleaders that Trump had been compromised by the Russians.

For example in January you wrote:

:pac:

Igotadose

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Impeaching a president should have bipartisan support and the only vote currently which does, is not to impeach him given that two democrats voted against it.

Proof by blatant assertion. Not required by the Constitution, unsurprisingly, since the Constitution doesn't care about political parties.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Comparing pears with bananas there, folks.

The Whistleblower is only avoiding being questioned in person because they don't want to be exposed as someone with an agenda and of course, also revealing that intelligence officials tasked them. They are the ones that came forward but now suddenly they don't want to talk? Give me a break.

As for those that are choosing not to give evidence, it would depend on their reasoning on whether I support them or not. Democrats have their thumb on the scales of justice and so it's understandable that the administration should instruct others not to partake it what amounts to little more than a kangaroo court.



As is his right. Glenn Simpson of Fusion GPS plead the 5th. Did any of you condemn that? Course not.

By your own argument it’s not about anything the whistleblower would give answers about, it’s about violating federal law to unmask the whistleblower.

mcmoustache

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Says someone who pushed the Russia-Trump collusion hoax for the guts of three years :P

How was it a hoax? There were investigations and everything.

DeconSheridan

This is just another clown show with no proof no nothing except to expose deluded politicians and what Americans are fed up with. This will strengthen the Republican Party's campaign in the 2020 elections with the House vote for impeachment proceedings being voted down with all republicans and 2 dems not in favour of impeachment.

Igotadose

Sigh. 7 posts. Woo hoo. Fresh fish.