ADVERTISEMENT

Nothing new...

bonefish1

All-American
Oct 4, 2004
17,292
16,587
113
Once again, the dems are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks (spoiler alert...nothing will).
And by the way, contrary to the stupidity of the general public libs, impeachment proceedings have not begun against President Trump.
 
Once again, the dems are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks (spoiler alert...nothing will).
And by the way, contrary to the stupidity of the general public libs, impeachment proceedings have not begun against President Trump.
The committee run by Nadler is coordinating an investigation in the House.
 
The committee run by Nadler is coordinating an investigation in the House.
I don't think they are exactly coordinating the investigation. Rather, I understood that each of the committees, 6 as I recall, would continue as they see fit and issue their reports to the Judiciary Committee for consideration of what, if anything, to include and write Articles of Impeachment based upon its review of those separate reports.
Same ballpark, I would agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: doubleyous
I don't think they are exactly coordinating the investigation. Rather, I understood that each of the committees, 6 as I recall, would continue as they see fit and issue their reports to the Judiciary Committee for consideration of what, if anything, to include and write Articles of Impeachment based upon its review of those separate reports.
Same ballpark, I would agree.
Perfectly said. I might add this inquiry has been going on now for 3 years. It was just publically announced.
 
Once again, the dems are just throwing stuff against the wall to see what sticks (spoiler alert...nothing will).
And by the way, contrary to the stupidity of the general public libs, impeachment proceedings have not begun against President Trump.


This one is covered in Krazy Glue and may well stick. Just sayin
 
This one is covered in Krazy Glue and may well stick. Just sayin
Beth, in your youthful wisdom, what is the impeachable offense in this weekly joke from the Democrat Party? Russia? Corruption? Bribry? Intimidation? Collusion? Sex with a intern?

Remember, this so-called whistle blower is a known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries, he didn't see nor hear anything, and his report is based on pure rumors by who knows who.

I'm telling you know, please don't get your hopes up. The only thing for sure is Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest will tell every lie they can tell.
 
Beth, in your youthful wisdom, what is the impeachable offense in this weekly joke from the Democrat Party? Russia? Corruption? Bribry? Intimidation? Collusion? Sex with a intern?

Remember, this so-called whistle blower is a known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries, he didn't see nor hear anything, and his report is based on pure rumors by who knows who.

I'm telling you know, please don't get your hopes up. The only thing for sure is Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest will tell every lie they can tell.

According to multiple sources, the whistleblower is a CIA agent assigned to the White House. Since we don't know who the person is why do you think he is a "known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries" .

Here is the impeachable offense as I understand it: Trump used military aid to Ukraine to influence the President of Ukraine to uncover information that could be used against his potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2020, former vice president Joe Biden.

Even to have talked to the Ukrainian president [a foreign government] to influence an American election by undermining a political rival seems to me to be an impeachable offense. He made the problem worse with his plan to send Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to talk to the Ukrainian president presumably about Biden. He then compounded his problems by threats against the whistleblower [the main witness] .



 
According to multiple sources, the whistleblower is a CIA agent assigned to the White House. Since we don't know who the person is why do you think he is a "known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries" .

Here is the impeachable offense as I understand it: Trump used military aid to Ukraine to influence the President of Ukraine to uncover information that could be used against his potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2020, former vice president Joe Biden.

Even to have talked to the Ukrainian president [a foreign government] to influence an American election by undermining a political rival seems to me to be an impeachable offense. He made the problem worse with his plan to send Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to talk to the Ukrainian president presumably about Biden. He then compounded his problems by threats against the whistleblower [the main witness] .


Yes, and the CIA agent was suddenly reassigned to a different job a couple days after filing the whistleblower complaint. You don’t know this person is a he. It has been reported that the whistleblower is indeed a known supporter of one of Trump’s adversaries and has displayed an animus against Trump, just like a number of the liberals on this board.

It has not been shown that Trump used military aid to influence the President of Ukraine. There has been conjecture in the media that he did. In some circles, it’s been said that he withheld aid due to corruption in the Ukrainian government and that a corrupt cabinet member was dismissed by the current President. The corrupt cabinet member had connections to Biden’s son.

Biden isn’t even the D nominee, so how does this impact an election 14 or so months away? Answer: it doesn’t. Pelosi launched this new inquiry BEFORE Trump even released the transcript of the the call! This inquiry is a joke. Right now, nothing has changed. The House has not formally launched an impeachment proceeding. There has been no vote to have an impeachment hearing or proceeding.

Once again, this is purely a political stunt. Do you honestly think the Senate will get 67 votes to officially impeach Trump? Dream on.
 
Yes, and the CIA agent was suddenly reassigned to a different job a couple days after filing the whistleblower complaint. You don’t know this person is a he. It has been reported that the whistleblower is indeed a known supporter of one of Trump’s adversaries and has displayed an animus against Trump, just like a number of the liberals on this board.

It has not been shown that Trump used military aid to influence the President of Ukraine. There has been conjecture in the media that he did. In some circles, it’s been said that he withheld aid due to corruption in the Ukrainian government and that a corrupt cabinet member was dismissed by the current President. The corrupt cabinet member had connections to Biden’s son.

Biden isn’t even the D nominee, so how does this impact an election 14 or so months away? Answer: it doesn’t. Pelosi launched this new inquiry BEFORE Trump even released the transcript of the the call! This inquiry is a joke. Right now, nothing has changed. The House has not formally launched an impeachment proceeding. There has been no vote to have an impeachment hearing or proceeding.

Once again, this is purely a political stunt. Do you honestly think the Senate will get 67 votes to officially impeach Trump? Dream on.
In a sea of bad takes, you can always count on SDBoiler to come in and make it worse.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atmafola
Once again, this is purely a political stunt. Do you honestly think the Senate will get 67 votes to officially impeach Trump? Dream on.
You need to go learn about the meaning of "impeachment." The House impeaches (indicts). The Senate convicts (removes from office). No, I seriously doubt he will be convicted unless multiple officials testify under oath about openly leveraging Ukraine with military aid.

I think there's a 99% chance he is impeached.
 
You need to go learn about the meaning of "impeachment." The House impeaches (indicts). The Senate convicts (removes from office). No, I seriously doubt he will be convicted unless multiple officials testify under oath about openly leveraging Ukraine with military aid.

I think there's a 99% chance he is impeached.
Perhaps, on a nearly party-line vote. And if the Ds do this, they will lose the 2020 election.
 
Beth, in your youthful wisdom, what is the impeachable offense in this weekly joke from the Democrat Party? Russia? Corruption? Bribry? Intimidation? Collusion? Sex with a intern?

Remember, this so-called whistle blower is a known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries, he didn't see nor hear anything, and his report is based on pure rumors by who knows who.

I'm telling you know, please don't get your hopes up. The only thing for sure is Schiff, Pelosi, and the rest will tell every lie they can tell.


What has been denied that the whistleblower alleges?

And the IG that Trump appointed must be secretly working against him too since he found it credible and alarming?
 
Yes, and the CIA agent was suddenly reassigned to a different job a couple days after filing the whistleblower complaint. You don’t know this person is a he. It has been reported that the whistleblower is indeed a known supporter of one of Trump’s adversaries and has displayed an animus against Trump, just like a number of the liberals on this board.

It has not been shown that Trump used military aid to influence the President of Ukraine. There has been conjecture in the media that he did. In some circles, it’s been said that he withheld aid due to corruption in the Ukrainian government and that a corrupt cabinet member was dismissed by the current President. The corrupt cabinet member had connections to Biden’s son.

Biden isn’t even the D nominee, so how does this impact an election 14 or so months away? Answer: it doesn’t. Pelosi launched this new inquiry BEFORE Trump even released the transcript of the the call! This inquiry is a joke. Right now, nothing has changed. The House has not formally launched an impeachment proceeding. There has been no vote to have an impeachment hearing or proceeding.

Once again, this is purely a political stunt. Do you honestly think the Senate will get 67 votes to officially impeach Trump? Dream on.

So should it not be investigated on whether Trump used the military aid to influence the President on investigating Biden?

Should it not be investigated why the President was trying to connect the Attorney General of the US with Ukraine?

Should it not be investigated why Barr declined to even open an investigation regarding a matter that included himself?

Should it not be investigated why one or more calls the President had have been secretly stored in alternative locations because of damaging political information?

This wreaks of corruption, you're just so freaking blind.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
Perhaps, on a nearly party-line vote. And if the Ds do this, they will lose the 2020 election.

Trump, himself, admitted to trying to get a foreign government to dig dirt on a political opportunity. He almost certainly used taxpayer dollars as a lever, too.

Americans are not cool with that. You shouldn't be, either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bill4411
I’ve never bought into the presumption that an impeachment inquiry automatically helps the person being investigated. Bill Clinton’s situation was unique in that he was being investigated for lying about having a consensual sexual relation with an intern, which does not seem like a high crime or misdemeanor. Trying to blackmail a foreign government to start an investigation into your political opponent certainly is a totally different animal and nothing good is going to come out of the this for Trump politically whether he is removed from office or not.
 
According to multiple sources, the whistleblower is a CIA agent assigned to the White House. Since we don't know who the person is why do you think he is a "known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries" .

Here is the impeachable offense as I understand it: Trump used military aid to Ukraine to influence the President of Ukraine to uncover information that could be used against his potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2020, former vice president Joe Biden.

Even to have talked to the Ukrainian president [a foreign government] to influence an American election by undermining a political rival seems to me to be an impeachable offense. He made the problem worse with his plan to send Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to talk to the Ukrainian president presumably about Biden. He then compounded his problems by threats against the whistleblower [the main witness] .


Because it was reported on multiple news channels. Listened to Mayor G last night and he once again stated as fact that the SD asked him to make the contact. They have noting to impeach POTUS for, and he will be your President for five more years. Unless he gets sick or dies. And so far, all charges are alleged by those who have had their big girl panties in a wad since Hillary lost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1
Because it was reported on multiple news channels. Listened to Mayor G last night and he once again stated as fact that the SD asked him to make the contact. They have noting to impeach POTUS for, and he will be your President for five more years. Unless he gets sick or dies. And so far, all charges are alleged by those who have had their big girl panties in a wad since Hillary lost.

Twin: that “panties in a wad” expression is offensive. Plus in the age of thongs what does it even mean? Plus it distorts your message. Plus I am not a Hillary supporter. I rarely watch tv news so not sure what you are talking about????
 
According to multiple sources, the whistleblower is a CIA agent assigned to the White House. Since we don't know who the person is why do you think he is a "known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries" .

Here is the impeachable offense as I understand it: Trump used military aid to Ukraine to influence the President of Ukraine to uncover information that could be used against his potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2020, former vice president Joe Biden.

Even to have talked to the Ukrainian president [a foreign government] to influence an American election by undermining a political rival seems to me to be an impeachable offense. He made the problem worse with his plan to send Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to talk to the Ukrainian president presumably about Biden. He then compounded his problems by threats against the whistleblower [the main witness] .


Because it was reported on multiple news channels. Listened to Mayor G last night and he once again stated as fact that the SD asked him to make the contact. They have noting to impeach POTUS for, and he will be your President for five more years. Unless he gets sick or dies. And so far, all charges are alleged by those who have had their big girl panties in a wad since Hillary lost.

Rudy Guliani is not a government employee. Why the hell is he involved at all? Plus he’s utterly batshit crazy and makes a fool out of himself every time he opens his mouth.

If you’re going to hold him as some kind of torchbearer for this administration.....,actually, it would be pretty fitting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
According to multiple sources, the whistleblower is a CIA agent assigned to the White House. Since we don't know who the person is why do you think he is a "known supporter of one of Trump's adversaries" .

Here is the impeachable offense as I understand it: Trump used military aid to Ukraine to influence the President of Ukraine to uncover information that could be used against his potential Democratic rival for the presidency in 2020, former vice president Joe Biden.

Even to have talked to the Ukrainian president [a foreign government] to influence an American election by undermining a political rival seems to me to be an impeachable offense. He made the problem worse with his plan to send Giuliani, his personal lawyer, to talk to the Ukrainian president presumably about Biden. He then compounded his problems by threats against the whistleblower [the main witness] .



Wrong.
He asked the Ukrainian President to investigate how Joe Biden meddled in THEIR government processes by withholding $1B in aid unless a prosecutor who was assigned to investigate the company paying Biden's son $600K per year, was fired. It's pretty cut and dry. Watch the Biden video.
 
Twin: that “panties in a wad” expression is offensive. Plus in the age of thongs what does it even mean? Plus it distorts your message. Plus I am not a Hillary supporter. I rarely watch tv news so not sure what you are talking about????

Ok, I gotta admit, the thong comment was pretty funny. Well done.
However, the 'panties in a wad' phrase is more directed at men, than women. But it's really just an analogy to the frustration we feel when our undergarments get all twisted around down there and we can't get comfortable.
That, and the fact that you're telling another guy he wears panties......
 
gotta wonder how many posters were even alive back then? ;)

Twin: that “panties in a wad” expression is offensive. Plus in the age of thongs what does it even mean? Plus it distorts your message. Plus I am not a Hillary supporter. I rarely watch tv news so not sure what you are talking about????
LMAO...great retort...kudos x 1,000,000 for that
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bethboilerfan
Twin: that “panties in a wad” expression is offensive. Plus in the age of thongs what does it even mean? Plus it distorts your message. Plus I am not a Hillary supporter. I rarely watch tv news so not sure what you are talking about????
Beth....it's an expression, nothing else. And if you rarely watch news, where do you get information to base your opinion that Trump is the anti-Christ? As for thongs....
 
So should it not be investigated on whether Trump used the military aid to influence the President on investigating Biden?

Should it not be investigated why the President was trying to connect the Attorney General of the US with Ukraine?

Should it not be investigated why Barr declined to even open an investigation regarding a matter that included himself?

Should it not be investigated why one or more calls the President had have been secretly stored in alternative locations because of damaging political information?

This wreaks of corruption, you're just so freaking blind.
Honest question for you...it's evident that you've never been a Trump fan, but where was your outrage when Hillary destroyed servers, cell phones, and records?
 
Rudy Guliani is not a government employee. Why the hell is he involved at all? Plus he’s utterly batshit crazy and makes a fool out of himself every time he opens his mouth.

If you’re going to hold him as some kind of torchbearer for this administration.....,actually, it would be pretty fitting.
You know, I have no clue why he's involved, but if the State Dept aske me to do something, I'm guessing as a service to this great nation I'd do it. Unless it was illegal. You know, like Fast and Furious. It's too bad the Demolibs can't accept their girl got beat.
 
Rudy Guliani is not a government employee. Why the hell is he involved at all? Plus he’s utterly batshit crazy and makes a fool out of himself every time he opens his mouth.

If you’re going to hold him as some kind of torchbearer for this administration.....,actually, it would be pretty fitting.
You know, I have no clue why he's involved, but if the State Dept aske me to do something, I'm guessing as a service to this great nation I'd do it. Unless it was illegal. You know, like Fast and Furious. It's too bad the Demolibs can't accept their girl got beat.

Hi, my name is TwinDegrees and even though literally NO ONE (besides Trump of course) brought up Hillary, I’m gonna and say it’s everyone else who can’t get over that she lost. Oh and Sean Hannity. He can’t quit her either. You’re like Rudy Jr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
Hi, my name is TwinDegrees and even though literally NO ONE (besides Trump of course) brought up Hillary, I’m gonna and say it’s everyone else who can’t get over that she lost. Oh and Sean Hannity. He can’t quit her either. You’re like Rudy Jr.
Oh GOD....I'm crushed.

You should probably be embarrassed more than anything. I know I would be if my only retort to everything is But Obama or But Hillary. There just isn’t much depth to your thought process. Thus the Rudy G comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indy35
This whole thing is disheartening to me in a way wholely apart from the actual Trump side of it. I am saddened, although not terribly surprised, to see the inability of so many of his supporters to view the need to determine what actually happened. Whether they ultimately accept that whatever actions the President engaged in were susceptible to impeachment isn't what concerns me, but that there is such a refusal to recognize that what occurred should be determined in an open forum.
When Clinton was impeached, I was unhappy - unhappy with him, unhappy with what occurred, unhappy with his reaction, unhappy about much, but I never though it was unimportant to determine what happened, nor unhappy that there was an impeachment (not for the sex part but for the perjury side) even though I never arrived at the conclusion that the overall situation rose to the level that removal was appropriate.
I find it very disturbing that people on here with whom I regularly disagree, but whom I have generally felt were rational for the most part, and supportive of our country (which includes its government and mechanisms), and are generally good people with differing views from mine, are so susceptible to the proposition of "kill the messenger. Long live the sovereign..."
 
This whole thing is disheartening to me in a way wholely apart from the actual Trump side of it. I am saddened, although not terribly surprised, to see the inability of so many of his supporters to view the need to determine what actually happened. Whether they ultimately accept that whatever actions the President engaged in were susceptible to impeachment isn't what concerns me, but that there is such a refusal to recognize that what occurred should be determined in an open forum.
When Clinton was impeached, I was unhappy - unhappy with him, unhappy with what occurred, unhappy with his reaction, unhappy about much, but I never though it was unimportant to determine what happened, nor unhappy that there was an impeachment (not for the sex part but for the perjury side) even though I never arrived at the conclusion that the overall situation rose to the level that removal was appropriate.
I find it very disturbing that people on here with whom I regularly disagree, but whom I have generally felt were rational for the most part, and supportive of our country (which includes its government and mechanisms), and are generally good people with differing views from mine, are so susceptible to the proposition of "kill the messenger. Long live the sovereign..."

I made a similar comment in another thread: I will never for the life of me understand why anyone would put the president (any president, not just this one), over the good of the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
Honest question for you...it's evident that you've never been a Trump fan, but where was your outrage when Hillary destroyed servers, cell phones, and records?
The inherent basic difference, assuming she did all for bad reasons, is that she wasn't the President of the United States trading on the prestige, power and finances of the United States to accomplish a personal end through a foreign government.
If you are so offended by her conduct, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how you can justify his. If anything, you should have the largest "Impeach Now" sign on the planet.
 
Honest question for you...it's evident that you've never been a Trump fan, but where was your outrage when Hillary destroyed servers, cell phones, and records?
The inherent basic difference, assuming she did all for bad reasons, is that she wasn't the President of the United States trading on the prestige, power and finances of the United States to accomplish a personal end through a foreign government.
If you are so offended by her conduct, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how you can justify his. If anything, you should have the largest "Impeach Now" sign on the planet.

Also, she was excoriated for it too. Folks like twin are exhibiting some big time hypocrisy when they excuse this but keep dredging up Hillary.
 
You should probably be embarrassed more than anything. I know I would be if my only retort to everything is But Obama or But Hillary. There just isn’t much depth to your thought process. Thus the Rudy G comparison.
I believe Hillary got away with a lot. But you're wrong in saying I
Also, she was excoriated for it too. Folks like twin are exhibiting some big time hypocrisy when they excuse this but keep dredging up Hillary.
You know, when you look at HC, there's a whole lot more corruption there than just destroying "documents".
 
You should probably be embarrassed more than anything. I know I would be if my only retort to everything is But Obama or But Hillary. There just isn’t much depth to your thought process. Thus the Rudy G comparison.
I believe Hillary got away with a lot. But you're wrong in saying I
Also, she was excoriated for it too. Folks like twin are exhibiting some big time hypocrisy when they excuse this but keep dredging up Hillary.
You know, when you look at HC, there's a whole lot more corruption there than just destroying "documents".

Are you getting your information from deepstate.com? Lmao
 
I believe Hillary got away with a lot. But you're wrong in saying I

You know, when you look at HC, there's a whole lot more corruption there than just destroying "documents".

Okay, but that still begs this issue-

The inherent basic difference, assuming she did all for bad reasons, is that she wasn't the President of the United States trading on the prestige, power and finances of the United States to accomplish a personal end through a foreign government.
If you are so offended by her conduct, it is utterly incomprehensible to me how you can justify his. If anything, you should have the largest "Impeach Now" sign on the planet.
 
When Clinton was
I remember when all that happened I was extremely disappointed in our president. So much so that I switched from being a Democrat to Republican. The Republicans seemed to have the moral high ground for so many years. Now with the current President, they no longer have that high ground. My personal opinion is that this President needs to step down for his party and his country. It's going to get ugly. Our country deserves better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 70boiler
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT