Outlaw Pete wrote: » Certain republicans that might have had Trump's back re:impeachment might not now on the back of his decision to withdraw from Syria. Lindsey, understandably, sounds disappointed and angry. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0KEEjfH4-NA
mcmoustache wrote: » Nobody willing to try to explain why Republicans didn't make a song and dance about this back in December 2015? I mean, if Biden did what he is accused of, how in their great and unmatched wisdom did they decide to just give him a pass?
notobtuse wrote: » My word.... Look at all the trouble getting Biden investigated once he admitted on tape that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired in less than 6 hours by holding back billions in payments from the US. If it is near impossible today, after the admission, what would it have been like back in 2015 when Obama controlled the White House? Anyway, we had enough to deal with back then when Obama was savaging the country.
mcmoustache wrote: » All it would have taken was for a couple of republicans to literally say "Biden's doing this for corrupt reasons".
Pilly2019 wrote: » Trump 2020 and there is nothing you can do about it God bless democracy and the USA Shills get bent
1800_Ladladlad wrote: »
ollkiller wrote: » Probably nothing can de done about him getting re-elected. But that's just a reflection of society. It's f**ked. All reality tv now. Wouldn't it be great if the world leaders of the the 3 biggest players weren't raging power hungry psychos. Hopefully if we're still here in a thousand years humans evolve to not fear each other and power hungry charlatans won't be able to capitalise on that fear through divide and conquer principles.
notobtuse wrote: » Well they're saying that today, with him on tape admitting to a quid pro quo, and your side claims it's illegal to investigate Biden. Biden was merely a figurehead in the Obama administration at the time, and continuing his record of being on the wrong side of history. He was always an easy target if he decided to run for POTUS for, like, the tenth time.
Matt Barrett wrote: » Before you go to next level conspiracy theory... In the interest of fair play you'll be looking at claims that Giuliani and chums planned to steer lucrative contracts from a Ukrainian gas deal to Trump's pals? Sounds like this wasn't about corruption but sour grapes and greed.
This after Trump sullying the reputation of the United States by leaving their allies the Kurds to be butchered by Turkey, who Trump gave a green light to. Despicable.
notobtuse wrote: » A little source material would be nice to back up your contention. Remember, though, Mad Magazine just shut down publication.
A group of wealthy Republican Party donors reportedly tried to install a new CEO at Ukraine’s state gas company, while touting their connections to the Trump administration and Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer. The businessmen hoped to personally profit from a change of management, by striking a deal with the company. Rick Perry, the US energy secretary, also tried to engineer a change in board members at Naftogaz, the multibillion-dollar corporation.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-ukraine-impeachment-naftogaz-rudy-giuliani-donors-inquiry-gop-a9145651.html
notobtuse wrote: » Trump ran for president on a promise of not continuing the legacy of endless wars the US gets itself into, and is sticking to that promise. (Fancy that, a politician sticking to their campaign promises... can you believe it?) Many Republicans are hawks and it is understandable why they are not in favor of a withdrawal. Democrats would be against anything Trump does.. that's a given. He’s laying out some assurances that if Turkey invades and goes to war with the Kurds he promises to put crippling sanctions on Turkey to destroy their economy. Is it the right move? Probably too early in the process to leave at the moment, IMO, and I think Trump might reconsider if enough advisors are against the idea.
Matt Barrett wrote: » You don't need hard evidence for your Biden meanderings...So 'drain the swamp' doesn't ring a bell? How doe TBF, I expect this has been going on in multiple parts of the world since his election.
“Adam Schiff is running an impeachment inquiry secretly, behind closed doors, and he’s making up the rules as he goes along,” said Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe. “These proceedings should be public,” added Republican Rep. Jim Jordan. “Democrats are trying to remove the president 13 months before an election based on an anonymous whistleblower … and they’re doing it all in a closed-door process.” “This is nothing more or less than a show trial for the media,” said Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking Republican on the Intelligence Committee, noting that with secrecy rules in place, the public knows only what is leaked to the press. “The Democrats leak what they want to leak to build narratives.”
notobtuse wrote: » Democrats didn’t even bother to have a floor vote of the full House to open an impeachment inquiry. By not holding a vote it has also allowed them to skirt the rules requiring such things as bipartisan questioning in hearings. Two interviews where held in secret and more interviews are coming up which will also be held in secret. Having the proceedings kept secret from the American public is Orwellian, and an abuse of power. Why don’t the Democrats want us to know what’s going on? Why do they require that they get to feed and filter their biased narrative and have their scribes in the media spin it for them? The obvious answer is the Democrats have a Shiff For Brains, and don’t believe in due process when it comes to Trump. Trump should put their nonsense on display and request nobody answer any questions from the kangaroo court until a full House floor vote is taken and bipartisan questioning is allowed.
notobtuse wrote: » If I'm reading that correct some stockholders wanted a change in management that better enhances their investments. Isn't that what stockholders often do?
notobtuse wrote: » Democrats didn’t even bother to have a floor vote of the full House to open an impeachment inquiry. By not holding a vote it has also allowed them to skirt the rules requiring such things as bipartisan questioning in hearings.
notobtuse wrote: » Two interviews where held in secret and more interviews are coming up which will also be held in secret. Having the proceedings kept secret from the American public is Orwellian, and an abuse of power. Why don’t the Democrats want us to know what’s going on? Why do they require that they get to feed and filter their biased narrative and have their scribes in the media spin it for them? The obvious answer is the Democrats have a Shiff For Brains, and don’t believe in due process when it comes to Trump. Trump should put their nonsense on display and request nobody answer any questions from the kangaroo court until a full House floor vote is taken and bipartisan questioning is allowed.
Penn wrote: » The House needs to determine if an impeachment vote is warranted, hence investigations to determine that. It's evidence gathering. And some hearings etc are held privately to protect sensitive information regarding national security etc, as would be standard. Plus some witnesses may be willing to say things in private hearings but not say publically. Regardless, they're still under oath, so private or public doesn't matter regarding their answers, and their answers will still be available to those making the decisions on whether or not to impeach, which includes Republican House Members (and Senators if it gets to the Senate).
Matt Barrett wrote: » Leveraging relationships with Trump and Giuliani, where they aware? Was withholding funding related? Was the Biden thing part of that? Hopefully we'll find out.
notobtuse wrote: » Bull$hit! Democrats determined an impeachment vote was warranted before Trump even assumed the office of president. But spin the continued witch-hunt as you wish and due process be damned!
Matt Barrett wrote: » Trump is an angry baby man. Can you imagine what he'd do if he got wind of who the whistle blowers are? He'd have nicknames and nickel back memes all over Twitter. When you are dealing with a petulant brat you need to be careful. Worry not, these interviews are being held with both Republicans and Democrats in attendance, the idea it's all democrats is Republican Trump protectionism and quite frankly, fake news.
Igotadose wrote: » Please. In your persecution fantasies, maybe. And, exactly what due process hasn't been followed? The trial has yet to happen (that's when due process happens.) This is a congressional investigation is all. No different than, say, Benghazi.
notobtuse wrote: » Trump would give them a nickname? Well, there you have it... absolute proof Trump should be impeached, locked up, and have the key thrown away.
Igotadose wrote: » That'll come out (or not) in the trial in the Senate. Stay tuned.
Trump: I could 'shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters'
notobtuse wrote: » 'Hey, I know somebody'... said every investor throughout history.
notobtuse wrote: » Wanna bet? It won't!
Matt Barrett wrote: » So you're defending Hunter Biden now?
