Impeach the MotherF%@KER!

[yoink 321]

34 minutes ago, normiss said:

The Friday night dump:

State Department finally released its report on Hillary Clinton's emails.

After million$$$ of dollars and years of investigations, it concluded that there was no mishandling of information, that people tried to follow the rules, and that none of the information that did get mishandled was classified at the time.

Although, some of it has been retroactively classified by the Trump administration.

 

 

Oh you pitiful fool!

Can't you see that this is all misinformation spread by the deep state??? That's just what they WANT you to think. My super secret network of ultra-covert ex black secret ops people tell me the TRUTH and no-one else. And I know because we've got a secret handshake and everything. And one of those decoder rings from froot loops.

Edited October 19, 2019 by yoink

[JerryBaumchen 1,356]

1 hour ago, normiss said:

State Department finally released its report on Hillary Clinton's emails.

Hi Mark,

There could be another Coming of Jesus himself saying that and the Trumpers would not believe it.

There will never be enough proof to change their minds.

Jerry Baumchen

[JoeWeber 2,720]

21 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Mark,

There could be another Coming of Jesus himself saying that and the Trumpers would not believe it.

There will never be enough proof to change their minds.

Jerry Baumchen

That is reality. And the sad consequence is that our elected officials are more focused on the ballot box than the fate of our nation. We've had our impeach the bastard reach around, now get ready for another 4 years of Trump.

[yobnoc 142]

I Wish I could make it say "Ofputin"

Edited October 19, 2019 by yobnoc

[DJL 235]

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Bill Taylor's testimony could not make the case for impeachment any clearer....

 

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1186747562616938496?s=20

[yobnoc 142]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

Bill Taylor's testimony could not make the case for impeachment any clearer....

 

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1186747562616938496?s=20

I didn't think I could be any more floored by this situation until I read the full 15 pages of his opening remarks.  I had hoped he would fill in the blanks about the phone calls in between and boy is it worse than I expected it to be. 

[jakee 1,489]

I think at this point the only defense against this being an impeachable situation is that the President is a God-Emperor who can do whatever he wants regardless of the law. And to be honest, that's probably what they'll fall back on!

[ryoder 1,590]

7 hours ago, jakee said:

I think at this point the only defense against this being an impeachable situation is that the President is a God-Emperor who can do whatever he wants regardless of the law. And to be honest, that's probably what they'll fall back on!

Well, he can always try using this in his defense: 

 

[turtlespeed 220]

On 9/24/2019 at 2:51 PM, yobnoc said:

Looks like Nancy is finally putting on the big girl britches tonight at 5PM EST.  About damn time. 

Poise? 

It probably Depends . . .

 

But Hey - Hows that whole impeachment process working out for you?

[billvon 2,990]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

But Hey - Hows that whole impeachment process working out for you?

Latest witness to implicate Trump in the quid-pro-quo scandal has just testified, so - fairly well.  It will never succeed, of course, since there are no remaining GOP senators with a spine.

[turtlespeed 220]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

Latest witness to implicate Trump in the quid-pro-quo scandal has just testified, so - fairly well.  It will never succeed, of course, since there are no remaining GOP senators with a spine.

I firmly believe that anyone that is or was a sitting official and has ever used "quid pro quo" as influence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

 

[Bigfalls 111]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Poise? 

It probably Depends . . .

 

on Depends

[yoink 321]

46 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I firmly believe that anyone that is or was a sitting official and has ever used "quid pro quo" as influence should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

 

You get there’s a difference of scale though, right?

On one hand quid pro quo could be seen as the basis for ANY negotiation.

But ‘I’ll save your seat in the Senate by the exit if you bring me a latte’ is a little different to ‘dig up dirt on my political opponent in our upcoming election and I’ll continue sending you military aid’, don’t you think??

 

[Rick 67]

7 minutes ago, yoink said:

You get there’s a difference of scale though, right?

On one hand quid pro quo could be seen as the basis for ANY negotiation.

But ‘I’ll save your seat in the Senate by the exit if you bring me a latte’ is a little different to ‘dig up dirt on my political opponent in our upcoming election and I’ll continue sending you military aid’, don’t you think??

 

Maybe getting away with the small things leads you to believe you can get away with the bigger things.  

[kallend 2,026]

36 minutes ago, Rick said:

Maybe getting away with the small things leads you to believe you can get away with the bigger things.  

I doubt anyone ever said "no" to the spoiled little rich kid.

[Rick 67]

or the poor kids once they became politicians  and that's how they became rich

[DJL 235]

4 minutes ago, kallend said:

I doubt anyone ever said "no" to the spoiled little rich kid.

Hopefully Melania is raising Baron.

[yobnoc 142]

4 hours ago, yoink said:

But ‘I’ll save your seat in the Senate by the exit if you bring me a latte’ is a little different to ‘dig up dirt on my political opponent in our upcoming election and I’ll continue sending you military aid’, don’t you think??

 

I prefer to refer to it as what it actually was - manufacturing dirt.  Not digging it up...making it up.

[turtlespeed 220]

4 minutes ago, yobnoc said:

I prefer to refer to it as what it actually was - manufacturing dirt.  Not digging it up...making it up.

You do realize that the VP Biden was on video bragging how he forced an investigation to be stopped by forcing the firing of the official - of another country - and witholding funds until that happened?

That is corruption that needs to be investigated.  No more, and no less, than Trump's involvement.

See video below - The prosecutor was investigating some people - and then - suddenly he wasn't.  I don't think that is Making up anything.

 

[yobnoc 142]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

You do realize that the VP Biden was on video bragging how he forced an investigation to be stopped by forcing the firing of the official - of another country - and witholding funds until that happened?

That is corruption that needs to be investigated.  No more, and no less, than Trump's involvement.

See video below - The prosecutor was investigating some people - and then - suddenly he wasn't.  I don't think that is Making up anything.

 

In true typical fashion, you have your facts completely wrong.

Viktor Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor who, while there was an open investigation into Burisma, had not pursued that investigation for over a year prior to his ouster.  That investigation's scope did not include Hunter Biden in any way whatsoever.  His name was not mentioned in any of it.  Either way, that investigation had been laying dormant - cold - for over a year.  If anything, forcing Shokin out would increase the likelihood that a new, non-corrupt prosecutor general might pick that investigation back up.

Also, this was not Joe Biden's idea, nor was it a policy that he himself pursued.  He acted only as the voice of the Obama administration, in conjunction with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.  This was a big deal to a lot of people, that Shokin was standing in the way of anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. 

Seriously, do some research.  I can get your entire set of talking points on my own just by watching reruns of Hannity.

 

[jakee 1,489]

29 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

You do realize that the VP Biden was on video bragging how he forced an investigation to be stopped by forcing the firing of the official - of another country - and witholding funds until that happened?

He bragged that he forced the firing of an official in charge of investigations. So?

 

Quote

That is corruption that needs to be investigated. 

No, that's incorrect.

 

Quote

No more, and no less, than Trump's involvement.

Absoutely not true.

 

One simple question - do you understand the difference between pursuing a policy that is in the national interest, and pursuing a policy that undermines the national interest for the personal benefit of an elected official?

[turtlespeed 220]

4 hours ago, yobnoc said:

In true typical fashion, you have your facts completely wrong.

Viktor Shokin was a corrupt prosecutor who, while there was an open investigation into Burisma, had not pursued that investigation for over a year prior to his ouster.  That investigation's scope did not include Hunter Biden in any way whatsoever.  His name was not mentioned in any of it.  Either way, that investigation had been laying dormant - cold - for over a year.  If anything, forcing Shokin out would increase the likelihood that a new, non-corrupt prosecutor general might pick that investigation back up.

Also, this was not Joe Biden's idea, nor was it a policy that he himself pursued.  He acted only as the voice of the Obama administration, in conjunction with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.  This was a big deal to a lot of people, that Shokin was standing in the way of anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. 

Seriously, do some research.  I can get your entire set of talking points on my own just by watching reruns of Hannity.

 

Where did I say "Hunter"?

Why would you think Obama gave a fuck about a prosecutor in Ukraine enough make a phone call, let alone hold back a billion dollars of loan security?

 

What possible motive would Obama have?

What was his stake in it?

 

Imagine Canada closing its borders until we fired the attorney general.

 

Edited October 24, 2019 by turtlespeed

[turtlespeed 220]

2 hours ago, jakee said:

He bragged that he forced the firing of an official in charge of investigations. So?

 

No, that's incorrect.

 

Absoutely not true.

 

One simple question - do you understand the difference between pursuing a policy that is in the national interest, and pursuing a policy that undermines the national interest for the personal benefit of an elected official?

I don't think it undermines the national interests.

Would you be screaming this loud if Obama did the same thing?

I know the republicans would, but would you ?

Would any of the usual suspects that hate trump?

[Skwrl 56]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't think it undermines the national interests.

Would you be screaming this loud if Obama did the same thing?

I know the republicans would, but would you ?

Would any of the usual suspects that hate trump?

Yes.  I would.  I'd want him impeached and removed from office.   I don't know why that would be surprising. 

Politics shouldn't be a "root for the home team, no matter what" thing.   Nobody is above the law.  We don't have kings; we have a president that serves pursuant to a Constitution and serves subject to its limitations.

If anything, I think we've seen that we need to rebalance the Executive (Article II of the Constitution - second for a reason) powers with the Legislative (Article I).

Edited October 24, 2019 by Skwrl
Corrected typo