• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Pelosi: Impeachment Is Moving Forward

Keith&Co. said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
We don't know that, it wasn't investigated.
Click to expand...
oh. Just looked tgat up.
No, we don't know who first paid for it. But they stopped paying about the time Boney became the heir apparent, and it became useless to anyone in the GOP.
THEN it got shopped to someone else.

But how much difference does the identity of the funding make, if the contents can be corroborated? And if the investigation had been authorized three times before the Steele document got added?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Fusion GPS were originally hired by people in the Jeb! Bush orbit, and when he dropped out they were free to shop their services around.

In any case, the Steele Dossier has nothing to do with this case. This is a pretty clear case of the President asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival.

As James Comey might say..."Lordy, there are tapes."
 
Ford said:
In any case, the Steele Dossier has nothing to do with this case. This is a pretty clear case of the President asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political rival.
Click to expand...
But it would be in character for his team to trybto implicate someone else in a distraction.
"Can you explain why you wanted Guliani to liase with the Ukraine on the Biden investigation?"
"You know, we never did see his long-form birth certificate."
"Guliani's?"
"Epstein's! People have told me, people are saying, he was related to Hillary. Why aren't you guys investigating that?"
 
Keith&Co. said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
We don't know that, it wasn't investigated.
Click to expand...
oh. Just looked tgat up.
No, we don't know who first paid for it. But they stopped paying about the time Boney became the heir apparent, and it became useless to anyone in the GOP.
THEN it got shopped to someone else.

But how much difference does the identity of the funding make, if the contents can be corroborated? And if the investigation had been authorized three times before the Steele document got added?
Click to expand...

Can it be corroborated though?

Are there any details of "piss-gate" that could be considered criminal on someone else's part? That might come up during an impeachment hearing, if McConnell and Roberts allow Trump to have his way? Remember, at an impeachment hearing Trump can call witnesses.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Keith&Co. said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
We don't know that, it wasn't investigated.
Click to expand...
oh. Just looked tgat up.
No, we don't know who first paid for it. But they stopped paying about the time Boney became the heir apparent, and it became useless to anyone in the GOP.
THEN it got shopped to someone else.

But how much difference does the identity of the funding make, if the contents can be corroborated? And if the investigation had been authorized three times before the Steele document got added?
Click to expand...

Can it be corroborated though?

Are there any details of "piss-gate" that could be considered criminal? That might come up during an impeachment hearing, if McConnell and Roberts allow Trump to have his way.
Click to expand...
I thought that many items in yyhe dossier were corroborated. And whether they were or jot, that will be forcing Mueller to explain each item, whether or not it stood up to scrutiny, and whatever else they found while investigating.

If we are having an impeachment, i think it's inherent that McConnell is not letting Trump have his way.
But if he brings up the dossier, then he's bringing up the entire investigation, of which the dossier eventually became a part. He's bringing up Mueller's report which shows right where Boney obstructed. That would not go well for someone whose impeachment will likely include witness intimidation charges.
 
Half-Life said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
Yes, Trump did break laws here. MSNBC has had a long parade of constitutionsal lawyers, ex-prosecuters, ex-high ranking members of the Justice department and a veritable parade of lawyers and ex-judges with expertise who have stated with little room for wriggling that indeed these actions constitute illegal acts.

Sorry to pop your little bubble of illusions. Who do I trust here, numerous experts with experience, or you and Sean Insanity? Again, if the Democrats really wanted to play hardball with Trump in face of a GOP controlled Senate that will not act, Spiro Agnew, shows us what could happen. Me, I am going to believe the parade of experts MSNBC has interviewed to clear the air of the FUD spread by Trump and Faux News.
Click to expand...

MSNBC has TDS just like CNN. Of course they're gonna say he committed a crime! We need unbiased sources. Fox News had Judge Digeneva on and he said there was absolutely no crime committed whatsoever.

But, you won't believe him because he was on Fox News. So, we clearly do not trust each others sources. What do we do?
Click to expand...

Fox News also had Judge Napolitano on who said Trump did commit a crime.
 
ZiprHead said:
Half-Life said:
Cheerful Charlie said:
Yes, Trump did break laws here. MSNBC has had a long parade of constitutionsal lawyers, ex-prosecuters, ex-high ranking members of the Justice department and a veritable parade of lawyers and ex-judges with expertise who have stated with little room for wriggling that indeed these actions constitute illegal acts.

Sorry to pop your little bubble of illusions. Who do I trust here, numerous experts with experience, or you and Sean Insanity? Again, if the Democrats really wanted to play hardball with Trump in face of a GOP controlled Senate that will not act, Spiro Agnew, shows us what could happen. Me, I am going to believe the parade of experts MSNBC has interviewed to clear the air of the FUD spread by Trump and Faux News.
Click to expand...

MSNBC has TDS just like CNN. Of course they're gonna say he committed a crime! We need unbiased sources. Fox News had Judge Digeneva on and he said there was absolutely no crime committed whatsoever.

But, you won't believe him because he was on Fox News. So, we clearly do not trust each others sources. What do we do?
Click to expand...

Fox News also had Judge Napolitano on who said Trump did commit a crime.
Click to expand...


"Well clearly Napolitano is a flaming liberal who is to the left of OAC, Talib, and all the other darkies." (Trump supporters, probably)
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Pelosi is tired of trying to rein in the radicals of her party. They've been trying to impeach since day one. She knows what a mess it would be.

So she's letting this go forward, so that her Democrat opponents can make as big a case as they can over this, so that when Trump releases the transcript the radical Democrats all look even more foolish than before.

Plus, by trying to impeach Trump over Biden's political dealings, there is either some inoculation of Biden against these charges or there is a way to get him out of the way for Warren.
Click to expand...

Democrat Tulsi Gabbard now supports impeachment inquiry in a change of course - USA Today

Oh no, the DNC deep state even got to Gabbard.
 
It has now been noted that there is quite a bit of strife in Faux news among the journalists and the opinion personalities. So who do we believe if we watch Faux?

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-shepard-smith-trump-news-coverage-2019-9

...

  • A tonal rift between Fox News' opinion hosts and anchors became more apparent amid the whistleblower scandal that has clouded Capitol Hill this week.
  • During Fox News anchor Shepard Smith's show on Tuesday, former judge Andrew Napolitano described the Trump White House as being "on very thin ice" and unequivocally said it was a "crime for the president to solicit aid for his campaign from a foreign government."
  • Hours later, on Fox News opinion host Tucker Carlson's show, his guest, former US Attorney Joseph diGenova, called Napolitano a "fool."
...

Blah blah blah

Shep Smith or Turkey Carlson?
 
It is interesting watching the arguments that half-life puts forth. But really, I think it is a question that very much needs and answer. If there was nothing wrong with wha he did, why did:
1) he move the transcript to a secret server
2) others in his own cabinet converse about how damning it was
3) Pence tell him to not say anything about it?

It’s easy to spout off the RT dodging points, but these questions are pretty meaningful.
 
Politesse said:
Half-Life said:
Why can't people see this? When I read about this, I felt like I got dumber just by reading it.
Click to expand...
I have to say, you're making a pretty convincing case for that proposition.
Click to expand...

I'm going to make a new thread about that. This is not the right thread for that discussion. I got a bit carried away in trying to make my point about progressives.
 
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Can you imagine if these Do Nothing Democrat Savages, people like Nadler, Schiff, AOC Plus 3, and many more, had a Republican Party who would have done to Obama what the Do Nothings are doing to me. Oh well, maybe next time!" / Twitter
then
Beto O'Rourke on Twitter: "When he calls 6 members of Congress—all women of color or Jewish—“savages,” he wants you to think of them as less than human. Like when he calls immigrants an “infestation” and says "no human being" would want to live in Baltimore. We can’t be surprised when violence follows. https://t.co/F0fVi3MmD8" / Twitter

That's Jerry Nadler, head of the House Judiciary Committee, and Adam Schiff, head of the House Intelligence Committee. AOC + 3 = "The Squad": AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Today I’m showing some love to @RepMaxineWaters + @RashidaTlaib, who endured the brunt of gaslighting & vitriol for being among the first to recognize WH corruption & publicly advocate for impeachment, making it easier for the rest of us.
People think that’s easy. It’s not." / Twitter
then
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "For months & years, these women endured criticism & death threats for telling the truth.
Yet they still tried to stop blatant corruption as it got worse: diplomats staying at Trump properties, kids dying in for-profit prisons who gave $ to his inaugural cmte, obstr of justice." / Twitter

Jon Levine on Twitter: "Congresswoman @RashidaTlaib tells cheering crowd that Trump impeachment coming
“We’re going to go in and impeach the motherfucker” https://t.co/oQJYqR78IA" / Twitter

Maxine Waters on Twitter: "Rep. Waters: Impeach Trump if there was any collusion with Russia https://t.co/AB21q5nzcg" / Twitter (6:28 PM · Mar 10, 2017)

Maxine Waters on Twitter: "Cohen admitted Trump instructed him to break the law. If it's a crime for Cohen, it's a crime for Trump. Debates about whether you can indict a president do not excuse Congress from its responsibility to impeach Trump for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes & misdemeanors."" / Twitter (12:53 PM · Aug 22, 2018)
 
Rhea said:
It is interesting watching the arguments that half-life puts forth. But really, I think it is a question that very much needs and answer. If there was nothing wrong with wha he did, why did:
1) he move the transcript to a secret server
2) others in his own cabinet converse about how damning it was
3) Pence tell him to not say anything about it?

It’s easy to spout off the RT dodging points, but these questions are pretty meaningful.
Click to expand...

Hiding the content of these conversations is the only remaining option if you are going to work for this president.

Look at how many people he's been through. People come into his sphere expecting a modicum of civility and intelligence and presidential behavior and are met with a flailing eight year old. So they're out the door, naturally not lasting very long. If you're going to hang around you quickly learn that you have to find another way to make the stay bearable, leave your scruples and dignity at the door and take the money. Become a yes man. It's not a complicated picture.

So hiding the truth, namely the stupidity and criminal behavior that your witnessing, becomes the only option if you've already sunk that low. It's not very difficult to comprehend.
 
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Keith&Co. said:
If we are having an impeachment, i think it's inherent that McConnell is not letting Trump have his way.
Click to expand...

You think so? You saw from the Garland appointment that he cares more about partisanship than procedure.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what iam saying.
if we ARE having an impeachment, it is not in McConnell's interest to let Trump drag in any other investigations where the GOP covered his ass.

This fonecall was entirely and exclusively Trump. The fonecall coverup was discrete individuals. The coverup of the coverup are still mostly appointees thst McC can afford to throw to the wolves.
He's going to want to limit the stain.
 
 
Keith&Co. said:
Jason Harvestdancer said:
Keith&Co. said:
If we are having an impeachment, i think it's inherent that McConnell is not letting Trump have his way.
Click to expand...

You think so? You saw from the Garland appointment that he cares more about partisanship than procedure.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what iam saying.
if we ARE having an impeachment, it is not in McConnell's interest to let Trump drag in any other investigations where the GOP covered his ass.
Click to expand...

The point I'm making is how many times and ways the Democrats didn't get investigated, that Trump could look in to. That is why I explained in my earlier post a few particular things Trump might look in to.

Here's another thing to consider - what if Trump directed the whistleblower to whistleblow?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom