Stop the Coup D'état!

sikofit · 2020-01-20T16:54:09.794Z

westaussie:

@Konssurvative1 That’s reasonable as I know my comments, coming from an Aussie, are readily accepted here.

Speaking of being a foreigner on this forum. I dont understand why you and our members from Camada and the UK are allowed to confronted about being foreigners talking US politics but mention of posters from other countries is a violation

FlameHeart · 2020-01-20T16:54:44.733Z

To clarify: Yes, the Republicans did block vote, and I can see why that would be suspicious. However, I don’t feel the impeachment process was entirely “solid.” Much of it was based on he said, she said. Sorry if I’m deflecting or red herring, or getting off topic a bit, but I’m trying to say they may have voted that way so as they didn’t see enough evidence or proof to justify impeachment.

toreyj01 · 2020-01-20T16:55:01.207Z

FlameHeart:

I think you’re right in some aspects; although I still have to disagree in others. Perhaps we should look at the context and how the process was conducted, the history, the “why” and “how.”

I honestly think the Congress was in a bit of a pickle here. They were concerned about 2020 obviously and they saw what happened when the FBI director announced a new investigation into HRC a week or so before the election. Her lead vaporized. Now, just a few days later he said there was nothing wrong but the damage was done.

And here we have Trump going to that well again, but now he wanted to do this on Biden. And no matter what nonsense he did in Ukraine, Congress couldn’t stop him because if they asked for answers he could refuse to answer. Heck, there hasn’t been a press briefing in over a year, so reporters couldn’t ask. If they impeached him, same thing. Refuse everything and ride it out until after the election. It takes a long time to get witnesses and documents through the courts, no way Congress could get all the witnesses they wanted before 2020.

So they did what they could, they used the witnesses they could get and still had enough to present a reasonable argument. Then they added one act of impeachment for all of the obstruction Trump did.

The GOP is arguing that there isn’t enough documents and first hand witnesses to validate impeachment. But that is a strange argument since that is one of the articles, that Trump wouldn’t release anything. And the Dems didn’t have any time to wait, they had to get this through before the elections or they could face similar problems that HRC faced.

Now the Senate is up, and some of the GOP Senators are saying they don’t want new witnesses or documents, that the Dems should have gotten them when it was in the House. But that doesn’t make sense. There has always been witnesses and documents in every impeachment.

sikofit · 2020-01-20T16:55:49.725Z

FlameHeart:

Is there a difference between legal and political?

Are you serious? Yes, huge

FlameHeart · 2020-01-20T16:56:37.370Z

“Socratic” question, my friend.

Roxiebelle · 2020-01-20T16:57:35.230Z

In addition any GOA rules broken are non binding and non criminal and I guess thats why previous Presidents haven’t been impeached since GOA documented 7 times Obama broke their rules and 5 times GWB broke the rules.

The fact the lying POS seditious Democrats and MSM hock this crap as legitimate impeachment crimes are the ones committing TREASON! The first step in cleaning up the rancid treasonous swamp in DC is voting out Democrats and then weeding out, as in “you’re fired”, corrupt unelected Bureaucrats and partisan Bureaucracy’s.

toreyj01 · 2020-01-20T16:58:14.764Z

zantax:

toreyj01:

zantax:

Long story short? Republican voters don’t care if Trump used government to go after his opponent given what was done to Trump as a candidate by Obama’s administration. They view it as tit for tat.

Thank you, Zantax. I wish more folks would honestly just say this. I really appreciate your honesty.

And that’s why it was the wrong thing to hang impeachment on, elected Republicans would be crucified by their base if they impeached him for doing more or less what the base believes was done to Trump. Opening an intelligence investigation against your political opposition’s leading primary candidate was a drastic step, this is part of the blow back. It also gave the simpleton Trump the idea that if Obama could get away with doing it to him, he could get away with doing it to Biden.

Obama did show a bit more restraint though, he never let on that they were investigating Trump until after the election was already over. He didn’t want to put a thumb on the scale.

NuffSaid · 2020-01-20T17:00:35.683Z

Roxiebelle:

The fact the lying POS seditious Democrats and MSM hock this crap as legitimate impeachment crimes are the ones committing TREASON! The first step in cleaning up the rancid treasonous swamp in DC is voting out Democrats and then weeding out, as in “you’re fired”, corrupt unelected Bureaucrats and partisan Bureaucracy’s.

Treason = penalty by death.

Are you advocating that Democrats should be executed?

zantax · 2020-01-20T17:01:21.839Z

toreyj01:

zantax:

toreyj01:

zantax:

Long story short? Republican voters don’t care if Trump used government to go after his opponent given what was done to Trump as a candidate by Obama’s administration. They view it as tit for tat.

Thank you, Zantax. I wish more folks would honestly just say this. I really appreciate your honesty.

And that’s why it was the wrong thing to hang impeachment on, elected Republicans would be crucified by their base if they impeached him for doing more or less what the base believes was done to Trump. Opening an intelligence investigation against your political opposition’s leading primary candidate was a drastic step, this is part of the blow back. It also gave the simpleton Trump the idea that if Obama could get away with doing it to him, he could get away with doing it to Biden.

Obama did show a bit more restraint though, he never let on that they were investigating Trump until after the election was already over. He didn’t want to put a thumb on the scale.

Yeah, he only let it be known those close to Trump were under investigation, leading everyone and their mother to assume Trump was too.

FlameHeart · 2020-01-20T17:03:17.252Z

toreyj01:

I honestly think the Congress was in a bit of a pickle here. They were concerned about 2020 obviously and they saw what happened when the FBI director announced a new investigation into HRC a week or so before the election. Her lead vaporized. Now, just a few days later he said there was nothing wrong but the damage was done.

Can’t deny that. It is true that the investigation happened just before a presidential election, and I do admit a lot of that was based in dirty politics.

toreyj01:

And here we have Trump going to that well again, but now he wanted to do this on Biden. And no matter what nonsense he did in Ukraine, Congress couldn’t stop him because if they asked for answers he could refuse to answer. Heck, there hasn’t been a press briefing in over a year, so reporters couldn’t ask. If they impeached him, same thing. Refuse everything and ride it out until after the election. It takes a long time to get witnesses and documents through the courts, no way Congress could get all the witnesses they wanted before 2020.

That is, indeed, suspicious. However, the press had been reporting on what they had. It did indeed get a lot of coverage, but not the right kind of coverage, such as with evidance- due to Trump not answering.

toreyj01:

Now the Senate is up, and some of the GOP Senators are saying they don’t want new witnesses or documents, that the Dems should have gotten them when it was in the House. But that doesn’t make sense. There has always been witnesses and documents in every impeachment.

This is where I disagree. Ideally, if the articles of impeachment are going to be drawn out, it would be a good idea to get witnesses, alibi, and evidence, yes?

sikofit · 2020-01-20T17:03:53.329Z

H_Arendt:

Like so many Trump accusations – this one rests on projection. When Trump accuses someone of something bad it almost inevitably is because Trump sees that failing in himself.

Almost? More like as dependable as the sun setting in the west

Camp · 2020-01-20T17:04:51.507Z

Abuse is literally so subjective it means nothing.

Akin to substituting criminal statutes with “you have been bad.”

thinkingman · 2020-01-20T17:05:44.420Z

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

westaussie:

I struggle to understand the rationale behind “none of which are normally impeachable offenses (sic)”. Only two previous presidents have been impeached; Trump is the third.

that has nothing to do with the so-called reasons the dems used to craft their ridiculous articles

Trump was impeached.

Andrew Johnson
William Clinton
Donald Trump

changes nothing about my post.

trump was impeached for nothing

You claim it was “for nothing”. The majority in the House of Representatives disagree. They set forth and passed articles of impeachment. They felt that what Trump* did rose to level of impeachment.

Their actions and opinions are the ones that counted when drafting and passing articles of impeachment.

it was a purely political stunt. the vote was totally partisan. quit lying to yourself

Impeachment is political in nature.

It does not matter that the vote was partisan (technically not since an independent, Amash voted FOR impeachment), the history books will include Trump* as being impeached.

Its okay to admit that.

what will history record as the reason? nothing, because the arent any legitimate ones

and what will history say if trump is re-elected?

LucyLou · 2020-01-20T17:06:34.080Z

toreyj01:

I find the responses against the impeachment rather perplexing. There is a term called “gaslighting”, where someone is seemingly one thing and yet others are convinced it is something else. It makes you doubt what you are seeing.

Here we have a lot of people who are absolutely convinced this whole thing is without merit and that Trump is being railroaded. Not that he did something dicey but it doesn’t merit impeachment, but denying that anything at all happened.

Here is what I know happened:

The Ukraine has been run by Russian oligarchs for a long time. The last one absconded with billions of dollars, leaving the country destitute. Another oligarch (Firtash) moved to Vienna with his stolen money. They left corrupt Prosecutors in place to stop Ukraine from pursuing them or shutting down their businesses.

Russia invades Crimea, faces tons of sanctions and is removed from the G8.

Ukraine applied for international funding, namely to the US, the IMF and the EU. They insisted that the Prosecutor who refused to pursue corruption (Shokin), be removed before loan guarantees would be dispensed. Which makes sense, with all the money being stolen out of that country. Biden is sent from the WH to relay this and 6 weeks later the President of Ukraine, Poroshenko, fires Shokin. Not immediately, in 6 weeks. Ukraine then gets its loan.

2 years after this, Burisma (a company partly owned by the guy who stole billions) tries to reform its image by hiring the ex-President of Poland for its board of directors. He installs a new board and asks the son of Biden to join, along with his business partner and several others. Their task was to show that Burisma was serious about tackling corruption. Firtash, still in Vienna, is indicted in the US and faces deportation from Austria to be tried in the US. He is still fighting this.

Poroshenko is facing reelection in 2019, the Trump administration asks him to investigate Biden in exchange for their endorsement. He refuses. (This is from Lev Parnas, who made the offer)

Poroshenko loses to a TV actor. Zelensky. Zelensky is dealing with the Russians now invading non the eastern front of his country and is reliant not only on missiles the US is sending over which help with Russian choppers and tanks, but on some sort of validation from the US that he is a good guy and we have his back. That would make negotiating with the Russians easier, since they still want back into the G8.

Trump and his close circle condition attending his inauguration, the missiles and all possible aid on Zelensky announcing that Biden, a top Democratic contender for 2020, was corrupt via his son being hired by Burisma. Trump refuses to attend Zelensky’s inauguration, then pulls the Veep from it after Zelensky refuses to announce it. Trump calls Zelensky to ask again and immediately afterward pulls the missiles.

Those are the basics I got. One person standing in their way was the ambassador to Ukraine, so they smeared her and had her fired. Firtash has a constant stream of Trump officials and helpers visit Vienna for information, mostly through a reporter called John Solomon.

Everyone seems to be involved, you have Rudy, Solomon, Barr, Parnas, Firtash, the married lawyers who represent everyone including Firtash. (Tensing is one of them I think). It looks like even some members of Congress are involved.

All this to try and get one up on Biden, who Trump could have very well beaten without the investigation announcement. So many people trying to placate the President, folks with good reputations and long careers.

Now, all of that is true.

But, impeachment is still without any kind of validation? It seems to me that this is a reasonable application of it. This is corruption, to me. I am not seeing what you guys are seeing, this seems fairly straight forward. If you think this still does not rise to the level of impeachment I would disagree but would still respect your opinion.

But saying there is nothing at all that is going on is rather strange, something did happen and it doesn’t seem to be proper. The GAO said it was illegal to do this. Can we at least agree on reality?

Great post, torey.

Konssurvative1 · 2020-01-20T17:09:18.538Z

Donald Trump. It is legal, it is constitutional. I do not believe it is a Coup’ but if people want to call it that. Then it would be an example of a legal Coup’

thinkingman · 2020-01-20T17:10:13.542Z

NuffSaid:

adroit:

thinkingman:

it was a purely political stunt. the vote was totally partisan. quit lying to yourself

Because the Republicans will run cover unabashedly for Trump doesn’t undermine the legitimacy of the impeachment.

Republicans are trying to de-legitimize the impeachment (where’d we hear that word before)

they dont have to. they are just pointing that out

NuffSaid · 2020-01-20T17:10:54.535Z

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

westaussie:

I struggle to understand the rationale behind “none of which are normally impeachable offenses (sic)”. Only two previous presidents have been impeached; Trump is the third.

that has nothing to do with the so-called reasons the dems used to craft their ridiculous articles

Trump was impeached.

Andrew Johnson
William Clinton
Donald Trump

changes nothing about my post.

trump was impeached for nothing

You claim it was “for nothing”. The majority in the House of Representatives disagree. They set forth and passed articles of impeachment. They felt that what Trump* did rose to level of impeachment.

Their actions and opinions are the ones that counted when drafting and passing articles of impeachment.

it was a purely political stunt. the vote was totally partisan. quit lying to yourself

Impeachment is political in nature.

It does not matter that the vote was partisan (technically not since an independent, Amash voted FOR impeachment), the history books will include Trump* as being impeached.

Its okay to admit that.

what will history record as the reason? nothing, because the arent any legitimate ones

and what will history say if trump is re-elected?

There are 2 articles of impeachment. You should read them. That is what historians will write down, its what the majority in the HoR voted on.

What will history say if Trump is re-elected? That in the first time in history that an impeached President was re-elected.

thinkingman · 2020-01-20T17:11:41.838Z

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

westaussie:

I struggle to understand the rationale behind “none of which are normally impeachable offenses (sic)”. Only two previous presidents have been impeached; Trump is the third.

that has nothing to do with the so-called reasons the dems used to craft their ridiculous articles

Trump was impeached.

Andrew Johnson
William Clinton
Donald Trump

changes nothing about my post.

trump was impeached for nothing

You claim it was “for nothing”. The majority in the House of Representatives disagree. They set forth and passed articles of impeachment. They felt that what Trump* did rose to level of impeachment.

Their actions and opinions are the ones that counted when drafting and passing articles of impeachment.

it was a purely political stunt. the vote was totally partisan. quit lying to yourself

Impeachment is political in nature.

It does not matter that the vote was partisan (technically not since an independent, Amash voted FOR impeachment), the history books will include Trump* as being impeached.

Its okay to admit that.

what will history record as the reason? nothing, because the arent any legitimate ones

and what will history say if trump is re-elected?

There are 2 articles of impeachment. You should read them. That is what historians will write down, its what the majority in the HoR voted on.

What will history say if Trump is re-elected? That in the first time in history that an impeached President was re-elected.

the articles are nonsense. thats why no one here ever wants to name them.

history will also record that the impeachment was obviously a political stunt as it did not affect trumps polls, or his effectiveness

Konssurvative1 · 2020-01-20T17:13:48.728Z

toreyj01:

The GOP is arguing that there isn’t enough documents and first hand witnesses to validate impeachment. But that is a strange argument since that is one of the articles, that Trump wouldn’t release anything. And the Dems didn’t have any time to wait, they had to get this through before the elections or they could face similar problems that HRC faced.

The GOP also argues that this is the very reason they do not need to allow witnesses to be called in the Senate Trial. There is plenty of documentation and transcripts of testimony taken from house hears and other investigative documentation. SO it can’t be both ways. You can’t have the Republicans saying that there wasn’t enough first hand witnesses and documentation to validate impeachment, but then say there is plenty of documentation and transcripts to validate the idea that there doesn’t need to be any witnesses called for the trial.

Does that make sense?

NuffSaid · 2020-01-20T17:14:53.474Z

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

NuffSaid:

thinkingman:

westaussie:

I struggle to understand the rationale behind “none of which are normally impeachable offenses (sic)”. Only two previous presidents have been impeached; Trump is the third.

that has nothing to do with the so-called reasons the dems used to craft their ridiculous articles

Trump was impeached.

Andrew Johnson
William Clinton
Donald Trump

changes nothing about my post.

trump was impeached for nothing

You claim it was “for nothing”. The majority in the House of Representatives disagree. They set forth and passed articles of impeachment. They felt that what Trump* did rose to level of impeachment.

Their actions and opinions are the ones that counted when drafting and passing articles of impeachment.

it was a purely political stunt. the vote was totally partisan. quit lying to yourself

Impeachment is political in nature.

It does not matter that the vote was partisan (technically not since an independent, Amash voted FOR impeachment), the history books will include Trump* as being impeached.

Its okay to admit that.

what will history record as the reason? nothing, because the arent any legitimate ones

and what will history say if trump is re-elected?

There are 2 articles of impeachment. You should read them. That is what historians will write down, its what the majority in the HoR voted on.

What will history say if Trump is re-elected? That in the first time in history that an impeached President was re-elected.

the articles are nonsense. thats why no one here ever wants to name them.

history will also record that the impeachment was obviously a political stunt as it did not affect trumps polls, or his effectiveness

Trump was impeached.
Your opinion is noted, but is not part of history.