CHECKS AND BALANCES

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
Spinner is spot on, Dems never dreamed the Prez would release it thereby blowing up their carefully laid plans. The "whistleblower" is totally compromised bc he worked with Schiff's staff before filing the complaint, totally based on hearsay, with his department's IG. Why do you think the Dems are now trying to keep him from testifying? .

Why is it so difficult to realize that the whistleblowers entire existence is totally irrelevant as has been suggested in another post in this thread? Why do we need to question the informant of a crime? Ever? Why would it matter that he met with Schiff? Why would it matter if he was Schiff’s partner? Everything material that he/she stated has been independently corroborated. So why do we need to know anything about him/her or what he/she did? Please help me understand his/her continued relevance. Do we question an informant on a crook whose information has led to the crook’s arrest and conviction? The answer is no. This questioning about the whistleblower is merely a red herring designed to take the focus off Trumpf. Nothing more. It no longer has any relevance to the investigation. None. Nada. Zilch.

As to the “Transcript,” both you and Spinner are wrong. Dead wrong. The summary/transcript taken along with the other facts that have been irrefutably established constitute an absolute admission of wrongdoing.

In the words of Trumpfians, “Read the the transcript.” It is incredible to me that anyone who read the transcript and listened to the Impeachment Hearing could conclude other than that Trumpf illegally withheld a meeting with the White House and withheld congressionally appropriated funds from Ukraine subject to the condition that Ukraine announce an investigation into the Bidens, such investigation being for the sole purpose of his personal political gain and at the expense of our national security. This is a fact. And it is very wrong and should be troubling to everyone, especially those appreciate the importance of Ukraine as a budding frontline democracy engaged in a hot war in which 14,000-15,000 Ukrainian lives have already been lost.

If the release of the transcript surprised the Dems, the surprise was at the unfathomable ignorance of Trumpf who really had no clue as to what he was releasing and did so at the objection of his advisers. In point of fact, he was releasing a confession to a crime.

To question the Dems or the investigation is equally wrong. They are carrying out their constitutional mandate of oversight. They are doing what we elected them to do. In a recent poll, 50% of Americans were in favor of impeachment and removal of Trumpf from office. Yet at the same point in the Clinton investigation, only 29% of Americans were in favor of his impeachment. This speaks volumes. The impeachment process may be inconvenient, but it is absolutely necessary.

You may be wary of the process, but before you decide to throw our democratic system of checks and balances under the bus, I commend for your reading pleasure Federalist No. 51, The Structure of Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks And Balances and Federalist No. 52-53, The House of Representatives, all written by James Madison. You can probably find both online.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
I read everything and listened to the full hearing. Everything you have said is false. You either have your head buried in the sand, you are mildly retarded, or you are a communist spewing a fictional narrative consistent with the Russian party line.
I spider, your personal attacks on a person with a different view make you like those awful progressives that won’t allow conservative views to even be heard, and attack people in restaurants when they are trying to have a private moment with their families. Pretty despicable no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.
Sic Semper Ignoramus. Sic vita est.
Legi, Intellexi, et Condemnavi.
Benigne cum ea. Et super illud.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
I spider, your personal attacks on a person with a different view make you like those awful progressives that won’t allow conservative views to even be heard, and attack people in restaurants when they are trying to have a private moment with their families. Pretty despicable no matter what side of the aisle you’re on.
From the playbook. Don’t like the message attack the messenger.
Delirant isti Spinner.
Contra principia negantem non est disputandum.
 

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,080
4,118
113
Article states,

"Phone calls between U.S. presidents and foreign leaders are not recorded, but the White House develops a rough transcript of the call using automated transcription software and note takers who try to make the record as accurate and complete as possible."

Standard procedure used by previous Presidents and none of the approximate 30 folks listening in on the call have questioned any material points in the rough transcript. The fact that it is not verbatim doesn't suggest that it is inaccurate or has been tampered with.

Spinner is spot on, Dems never dreamed the Prez would release it thereby blowing up their carefully laid plans. The "whistleblower" is totally compromised bc he worked with Schiff's staff before filing the complaint, totally based on hearsay, with his department's IG. Why do you think the Dems are now trying to keep him from testifying?

I'll say again, I'm not a Trump guy, but the Dems have totally botched this impeachment business. They are their own worst enemy. Hatred is blinding.

The country would be well served if the Trump crowd and the Resistance called a truce. Politics does not have to be a blood sport. They are wrecking our Republic and there is plenty of blame for both sides to share.

I certainly could not take the time to listen to all of the testimony, but what I heard is not consistent with your statements. However, I agree with your last two paragraphs.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
did you see the part where each witness shiff brought out was asked if trump broke the law or committed an appeachable offense? if so, did you hear a single one of them say yes, he did? most of these witnesses were not even on the call, including the one they are attempting to pass off as a whistleblower, and most have never even spoken to the president. what these witnesses provided was their opinions not facts, just comical. A, as far as i know, it was a transcript of the call not a synopsis like barr originally did with the mueller fiasco. trump releasing the transcript is what shiff did not count on, he thought he would be able to lie his way through this but got caught. not sure what you guys are watching or reading but you have been had once again and don't know when you will wise up and use your brains.
Ignorantia sit beatitudo. Mentiri et Malik.
Mendax es, an ignarus.
Magis venire.
 

Eight Legger

Spider's Club
May 27, 2003
17,891
13,654
113
An interesting question to me is this: Were Trump a Democrat, what would the House Republicans think of his actions?
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
Article states,

"Phone calls between U.S. presidents and foreign leaders are not recorded, but the White House develops a rough transcript of the call using automated transcription software and note takers who try to make the record as accurate and complete as possible."

Standard procedure used by previous Presidents and none of the approximate 30 folks listening in on the call have questioned any material points in the rough transcript. The fact that it is not verbatim doesn't suggest that it is inaccurate or has been tampered with.

Spinner is spot on, Dems never dreamed the Prez would release it thereby blowing up their carefully laid plans. The "whistleblower" is totally compromised bc he worked with Schiff's staff before filing the complaint, totally based on hearsay, with his department's IG. Why do you think the Dems are now trying to keep him from testifying?

I'll say again, I'm not a Trump guy, but the Dems have totally botched this impeachment business. They are their own worst enemy. Hatred is blinding.

The country would be well served if the Trump crowd and the Resistance called a truce. Politics does not have to be a blood sport. They are wrecking our Republic and there is plenty of blame for both sides to share.

I certainly could not take the time to listen to all of the testimony, but what I heard is not consistent with your statements. However, I agree with your last two paragraphs.

So how might the Democrats have have handled the impeachment inquiry in a not botched manner and still honored their constitutional obligation of oversight? With puppet Barr in as AG, a special prosecutor was never going to be an option. Everyone acknowledged that. Even if it had been an option, it would have taken months and cost millions. But it was truly never an option. Trump with the help of Barr would have thwarted all efforts for such an appointment. And maybe it's best that such was the case.

The only other option available was the option that the Dems employed, i e., to conduct the investigation themselves...which is exactly what they did. And in doing so they followed completely the rules that had been set by the Republicans when they investigated Hilary Clinton as the to Benghazi fiasco. They conducted their investigation in the very same manner. The initial private depositions were in complete compliance and accord with the rules established by the Republicans. In fact, Trey Gowdy, the primary Benghazi inquisitor was contacted and confirmed the appropriateness of private depositions viz a viz the investigation. It is a means employed to avoid witness collaboration and possible collusion. It was totally legitimate and completely served its intended purpose.

So, again, what might one propose as changes to how the investigation should have been handled so as to avoid the perceived ”botching” that supposedly occurred, keeping in mind the legal and ethical obligation of the House of Representatives for oversight?
I'm open and invite these suggestions. Seriously.

On another point, KE Spider is wrong that no one questioned the ”transcript.” Lt Col Vindman stated that he remembered specific references to Burisma, to the Bidens, and a few other references that were omitted or that the word ”company” was substituted for. Lt Col Vindman testified that he brought this to the attention of his superior. And, if memory serves, there was another witness who testified to this as well. There is also some other evidence that the ”transcript” was doctored a bit by the White House, though most agree not materially.

For someone who states that he is not a ”Trump guy, ” I'm thinking that KE Spider sure has learned and seems to endorse a large part of the Trumpf fictional agenda. But maybe not. Maybe his apologia is an attempt to offer some assistance to Spinner who offers nothing more than alt right platitudes and worn out tropes, and who refuses to address the issues or deal with the facts. Hard to say where he is coming from. I guess we will see.
 

ShaferFan04

Rookie
Nov 24, 2018
157
18
18
An interesting question to me is this: Were Trump a Democrat, what would the House Republicans think of his actions?

The idea that the Republicans could have made a silly phone call in to anything more than a one day news story is preposterous. Do Republicans unfairly criticize Dems when they are in the Presidency? Sure. But they could never get away with making hay over something this trivial. The media just wouldn't cover the story, and without that you can't launch an Impeachment. The Clinton story was crazy and salacious. Semen covered dresses, cigars being shoved up an intern's vag. It was total clickbait that everybody in America was at least interested in hearing about. But a one minute phone call with some President nobody ever heard of from a country no American cares about? How could Republicans possibly make that in to a news story?
 
Sep 14, 2019
180
61
28
The idea that the Republicans could have made a silly phone call in to anything more than a one day news story is preposterous. Do Republicans unfairly criticize Dems when they are in the Presidency? Sure. But they could never get away with making hay over something this trivial. The media just wouldn't cover the story, and without that you can't launch an Impeachment. The Clinton story was crazy and salacious. Semen covered dresses, cigars being shoved up an intern's vag. It was total clickbait that everybody in America was at least interested in hearing about. But a one minute phone call with some President nobody ever heard of from a country no American cares about? How could Republicans possibly make that in to a news story?

So do I read you correctly, Mr. ShaferFan04? Do you honestly believe that what Clinton did was more offensive than what has been done by Trump? Interesting. I take the opposite view. IMO, the offense by Trump occurring over several months and being stopped and exposed only when the whistleblower blew his whistle was far more offensive and abusive of power in that it had to do with our national security. I don't think that having at it with a sexy young intern was such a threat. One might also look upon it as Clinton obtaining some momentary relief from the awsome stress of the Office of the President by frolicking behind the scenes in his Oval Office as compared to Trump playing with "the viability of a front line ally in a budding democracy and selling the national security of our country for personal political favors." Clinton's behavior doesn't seem nearly as heinous in that light...at least not compared to that of Trump. But I may be missing something. I am certainly open to that possibility. If so, please do not hesitate to point it out to me.

You should also remember that Clinton was not impeached for having sex. I don't think that sex with a woman over the age of majority was illegal in D.C., even back then, though it was morally wrong given the circumstances. Clinton was impeached for lying about having sex, understandably embarrassing for sure, and illegal, yet lying is something that Trump has done thousands of times while in office and continues to do daily, though given --not under oath.

Clinton also apologized to the nation. When he did that, I kinda forgave him for the indiscretion/peccadillo, the semen on the dress and the cigar notwithstanding. However, Trump maintains his reign unapologetically and without remorse. The proceedings thus far do not seem to phase him and I think everyone doubts that they will be a deterrent to such future behavior should they not proceed.
So, Mr. ShaferFan04, please do me a favor and take a step back--try to see things from a different perspective...try, just for the hell of it, looking at things through my lens. Forget about our party politics (I have been a staunch Republican my entire life) and do it for our country. Being a Low-Life-Scum-Never-Trumper ain't all that bad. I speak from experience. And if there are enough of us, it will be great for our country.

Maybe Trump's behavior doesn't jump out at you quite as much as it should, but that is most assuredly because Trump's entire life has been "crazy and salacious," and as much as I detested Clinton, I do not think that there is any comparison as to the heinousness of the offense which he committed compared to what Trump has done.

Since another poster has resorted to the use of Latin expressions, let me share with you my entire Latin lexicon and say to you,
res ipsa loquitur.


As to how many Republican views on the two impeachments have changed, unbelievably partisan, of course, see link below:

Lawmakers have shifted their positions on preserving the integrity of American democracy a lot in 20 years.

"...All told, the Clinton investigations lasted more than four years, cost taxpayers nearly $80 million, and resulted in the House impeaching the president for misconduct in a lawsuit related to his [lie about] extramarital affairs.

"The subject matter of the Trump inquiry is altogether different: a scheme orchestrated by the president and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to pressure a foreign government to dig up dirt on a potential 2020 rival, former vice president Joe Biden, and to withhold a White House invitation and millions of dollars in foreign aid to force Ukraine to cooperate. In addition, special counsel Robert Mueller submitted a report to Congress earlier this year outlining the ways in which Trump, in a wholly distinct scandal, may have obstructed the government's investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election...."
 
  • Like
Reactions: iSpider

WebSpinner

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 7, 2003
20,520
825
113
if you look back, the media and their partners in the dem party, started talking about impeachment the first days after he was elected. that is not how or what impeachment is, period. even the so-called whistleblower's attorney, two days after inauguration tweeted, the coup has begun. the dems and the media cannot stand that they lost the election and they want to remove this guy and sabotage his administration. our country is not about coups, it is about elections. A, you want the shoe on the other foot, take a look at nadler, judiciary committee head's comments when clinton was up against it, said everything he is going against with this sham. if i thought trump had committed a crime or done something impeachable, would be for it but he has not. this is just a continuation of the dems attempt to remove him from office no matter what and will taint and set back this process forever. they just want power and they don't care who gets in the way or who they harm. think how many presidents we have had over hundreds of years and this would be what the 3rd time this has taken place. not one witness before shiff stated that trump had committed a crime or did something impeachable, they only stated that they did not like how he did things, come on people, just ludicrous. again, the so-called whistleblower was not even on the phone call but he is the person who initiated this entire sham. in other words, based on hearsay, not actual witnessing, shiff goes after this. one thing that sticks with me is dershowitz, a liberal dem who does like what trump has done in israel but did not vote for him and never would, stated that this was just so harmful and based on what they are doing here, that obama had done five or six things which could be impeachable based on what they are using. he thinks it is scary and sets a precedent which can come back and haunt our country. elections get rid of a president you don't like, not a coup and if you guys really had a common sense, honest, thought, you would admit that but you are so full of hate, you cannot bring yourself to be straight with yourself or anyone else. this is another russian deal which all you guys thought was real and you were led down a sewer hole by your party and its partners in the media and you bought into it and believed it and were lied to right to your faces but don't care. what kind of thinking is this? you guys are smarter than this but guess the hate overcomes reality or maybe you are not that smart or just very gullible.
 

Eight Legger

Spider's Club
May 27, 2003
17,891
13,654
113
You can call it hearsay if you'd like, but it's testimony. Ultimately people will believe the testimony or they won't. This is how trials work, too. Plenty of people who are convicted of crimes are convicted not because there is video evidence of them committing the crime or audio of them admitting to the crime but because of testimony under oath by a number of people who can provide evidence, observations and other information that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that a crime was committed.

It's up to those in office to determine whether this information provided by a number of witnesses, including a Trump appointee and donor, rise to the level of impeachment or not.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,656
2,526
113
Agreed. Should be even a higher standard since impeachment is in essence the the overturning of the voice of the electorate
 
  • Like
Reactions: iSpider

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,080
4,118
113
Impeachment (at this stage) is like an indictment, the actual trial will be in the Senate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,656
2,526
113
Agreed. Doesnt contradict my previous post. We have an election in less than a year. Let the citizenry be the jury.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
You can call it hearsay if you'd like, but it's testimony. Ultimately people will believe the testimony or they won't. This is how trials work, too. Plenty of people who are convicted of crimes are convicted not because there is video evidence of them committing the crime or audio of them admitting to the crime but because of testimony under oath by a number of people who can provide evidence, observations and other information that shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that a crime was committed.

It's up to those in office to determine whether this information provided by a number of witnesses, including a Trump appointee and donor, rise to the level of impeachment or not.


Confessions are not hearsay.
Read the transcript.
No rational, competent human being can believe that Trumpf did not attempt to coerce a foreign power to interfere in the United States electoral process. This is an egregious abuse of power. Nothing less. As such, it is an impeachable offense.
Please stop minimizing what has occurred. Think of the precedential harm to our constitution and democracy should we let this go unpunished. Regardless of your political affiliation, stand up and refuse to be ruled by a mad tyrant who would be king.

In summary, impeach that slimy, worthless, narcissistic (and I quote) son-of-a-bitch.

God bless Adam Schiff.
God bless Jerry Nadler.

I've got an impeachment hearing in the Judiciary Committee to watch tomorrow morning. I need my rest.

Good night to all.
 
Last edited:

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
if you look back, the media and their partners in the dem party, started talking about impeachment the first days after he was elected. that is not how or what impeachment is, period. even the so-called whistleblower's attorney, two days after inauguration tweeted, the coup has begun. the dems and the media cannot stand that they lost the election and they want to remove this guy and sabotage his administration. our country is not about coups, it is about elections. A, you want the shoe on the other foot, take a look at nadler, judiciary committee head's comments when clinton was up against it, said everything he is going against with this sham. if i thought trump had committed a crime or done something impeachable, would be for it but he has not. this is just a continuation of the dems attempt to remove him from office no matter what and will taint and set back this process forever. they just want power and they don't care who gets in the way or who they harm. think how many presidents we have had over hundreds of years and this would be what the 3rd time this has taken place. not one witness before shiff stated that trump had committed a crime or did something impeachable, they only stated that they did not like how he did things, come on people, just ludicrous. again, the so-called whistleblower was not even on the phone call but he is the person who initiated this entire sham. in other words, based on hearsay, not actual witnessing, shiff goes after this. one thing that sticks with me is dershowitz, a liberal dem who does like what trump has done in israel but did not vote for him and never would, stated that this was just so harmful and based on what they are doing here, that obama had done five or six things which could be impeachable based on what they are using. he thinks it is scary and sets a precedent which can come back and haunt our country. elections get rid of a president you don't like, not a coup and if you guys really had a common sense, honest, thought, you would admit that but you are so full of hate, you cannot bring yourself to be straight with yourself or anyone else. this is another russian deal which all you guys thought was real and you were led down a sewer hole by your party and its partners in the media and you bought into it and believed it and were lied to right to your faces but don't care. what kind of thinking is this? you guys are smarter than this but guess the hate overcomes reality or maybe you are not that smart or just very gullible.

Comrade Webspinner, you just don't get it.
It's not about the whistleblower whose every assertion has been independently collaborated, it's not about his attorney who wants Trumpf dethroned, it's not about the Dems who detest Trumpf, it's not about Obama whose presidency you abhor, it's not about Alan Dershowitz or Israel or Dershowitz’ decision not to vote for Trumpf.
It's not about any if those things. They may be interesting anecdotes, but they do not have any bearing on the question at hand.

Your ”what-about” parade is what rhetoricians and logicians (lawyers and judges too) call irrelevant. They are also known as strawman arguments or logical fallacies. The problem is that they are not germaine and do not advance the impeachment discussion. Not an iota. They are mere distractions intended, I would guess, to direct attention away from the sole issue of whether Trumpf should be impeached, and such appositives are espoused by you, one would presume because you have no facts to advance your position that Trumpf should not be impeached nor can you uncover any sensible argument to advance in support of a contrary position.

Comrade Webspinner, prove me wrong.
Tear down that logically fallacious wall.
Drop the ”what-abouts” and tell me why Trumpf should not be impeached.
Tell me why his actions and behavior do not warrant impeachment.
 

ShaferFan04

Rookie
Nov 24, 2018
157
18
18
So do I read you correctly, Mr. ShaferFan04? Do you honestly believe that what Clinton did was more offensive than what has been done by Trump?

That it was more offensive is self evident. Cheating on your wife is by itself offensive. Doing it with a White House intern, inserting strange objects up her, ejaculating in the Oval Office- these things just added to the offensiveness.

The Trump thing isn't offensive in the slightest. It was an innocuous phone call of the sort Presidents make every day discussing a topic few people even have any interest in. That is why the ratings for the Impeachment Hearings have been so low.

I don't think either think is Impeachable, but in terms of offensiveness, there is little doubt Clinton's unfair impeachment at least brought to the table something normal people could get agitated about.

And as for the notion that Republicans would never have been able to get a media campaign behind them if they tried to go after a Democrat for the same thing that the Dems are going after Trump for right now, we don't even have to speculate on that. We know for a fact they couldn't, because the leading Democratic Candidate was caught on tape doing the exact same (the details in Biden's case are actually far worse, in fact) thing the Democrats are currently trying to impeach Trump over and the media acts like it was nothing.
 
Sep 14, 2019
180
61
28
QUOTE="ShaferFan04, post: 289087, member: 3954"]That it was more offensive is self evident. Cheating on your wife is by itself offensive. Doing it with a White House intern, inserting strange objects up her, ejaculating in the Oval Office- these things just added to the offensiveness.
Clinton was not impeached for a sexual offense. He was impeached for lying in a deposition and before a grand jury. Big difference. The underlying circumstances may offend you, but they are certainly no more offensive than having a sexual relationship with a prostitute, i.e., Stormy Daniels, while having a 4-month-old child at home being attended to by your wife and subsequently acknowledging to a reporter that the way to deal with women who swoon over you is to "grab them by the pussy." And, yes, thereafter paying $130,00 in contravention of election laws to cover up the indiscretion.


The Trump thing isn't offensive in the slightest. It was an innocuous phone call of the sort Presidents make every day discussing a topic few people even have any interest in. That is why the ratings for the Impeachment Hearings have been so low.
We apparently have a difference in our value systems. I consider a breach of national security and coercing a struggling foreign ally to aid your reelection efforts much more odious than having a fling with an employee. (I'm not sure about the cigar, but the semen on the dress seems to me a natural consequence of the event.)
As to the level of offensiveness, I just finished watching on TV four (4) constitutional scholars (yes, including Turley) testify that, if proven, the abuse of power by Trump is the gravest type of abuse of power imaginable and that it is exactly the type of abuse of power that the framers of the constitution feared the most and sought to prevent through the impeachment process.
As a Christian, I don't countenance either Clinton or Trump's adulterous escapades, but I try to maintain a sense of reason when it comes to their comparative levels of offense and impact on the security of this country.


I don't think either think is Impeachable, but in terms of offensiveness, there is little doubt Clinton's unfair impeachment at least brought to the table something normal people could get agitated about.
What Trump has done is irrefutably impeachable. If the House does not impeach they will be abdicating their role as a separate and equal branch of government, shirking in their responsibility of oversight, and laying the groundwork for future presidents to do as they please, i.e., to assume the role of a Monarch with no restraints except for the one they themselves impose. The process may be inconvenient for many, but it is a small cost when one considers that it is essential for the preservation of our Republic.
George III would be proud of you.


And as for the notion that Republicans would never have been able to get a media campaign behind them if they tried to go after a Democrat for the same thing that the Dems are going after Trump for right now, we don't even have to speculate on that. We know for a fact they couldn't, because the leading Democratic Candidate was caught on tape doing the exact same (the details in Biden's case are actually far worse, in fact) thing the Democrats are currently trying to impeach Trump over and the media acts like it was nothing
Shame on you. You are doing nothing more here than adopting the Russian propaganda and party line which has been discredited by the entire Intelligence Community and by several other governments who are our allies. Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election is a fictional narrative created by the Russians to deflect our heat on them. The Hunter Biden involvement as a director of Burisma, which Hunter has acknowledged publicly was inappropriate, has nothing to do with what Trump did while serving as president or in any way justifies his subsequent actions. The removal of the former prosecutor, Shokin, which was assisted by Joe Biden was at the behest of not only our government but also at the behest of most other members of NATO. All acknowledge that Shokin's open corruption and agree that he needed to be removed. Your adoption of this narrative is not only inappropriate and contrary to what the Intelligence Community has stated, but it is also on its face disingenuous.
Vladimir Putin sends his thanks.

Links:
Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Senate Intel found no evidence of 2016 Ukrainian interference
 
Last edited:

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,656
2,526
113
QUOTE="ShaferFan04, post: 289087, member: 3954"]That it was more offensive is self evident. Cheating on your wife is by itself offensive. Doing it with a White House intern, inserting strange objects up her, ejaculating in the Oval Office- these things just added to the offensiveness.
Clinton was not impeached for a sexual offense. He was impeached for lying in a deposition and before a grand jury. Big difference. The underlying circumstances may offend you, but they are certainly no more offensive than having a sexual relationship with a prostitute, i.e., Stormy Daniels, while having a 4-month-old child at home being attended to by your wife and subsequently acknowledging to a reporter that the way to deal with women who swoon over you is to "grab them by the pussy." And, yes, thereafter paying $130,00 in contravention of election laws to cover up the indiscretion.


The Trump thing isn't offensive in the slightest. It was an innocuous phone call of the sort Presidents make every day discussing a topic few people even have any interest in. That is why the ratings for the Impeachment Hearings have been so low.
We apparently have a difference in our value systems. I consider a breach of national security and coercing a struggling foreign ally to aid your reelection efforts much more odious than having a fling with an employee. (I'm not sure about the cigar, but the semen on the dress seems to me a natural consequence of the event.)
As to the level of offensiveness, I just finished watching on TV four (4) constitutional scholars (yes, including Turley) testify that, if proven, the abuse of power by Trump is the gravest type of abuse of power imaginable and that it is exactly the type of abuse of power that the framers of the constitution feared the most and sought to prevent through the impeachment process.
As a Christian, I don't countenance either Clinton or Trump's adulterous escapades, but I try to maintain a sense of reason when it comes to their comparative levels of offense and impact on the security of this country.


I don't think either think is Impeachable, but in terms of offensiveness, there is little doubt Clinton's unfair impeachment at least brought to the table something normal people could get agitated about.
What Trump has done is irrefutably impeachable. If the House does not impeach they will be abdicating their role as a separate and equal branch of government, shirking in their responsibility of oversight, and laying the groundwork for future presidents to do as they please, i.e., to assume the role of a Monarch with no restraints except for the one they themselves impose. It process may be inconvenient for many, but it is a small cost when one considers that it is essential for the preservation of our Republic.
George III would be proud of you.


And as for the notion that Republicans would never have been able to get a media campaign behind them if they tried to go after a Democrat for the same thing that the Dems are going after Trump for right now, we don't even have to speculate on that. We know for a fact they couldn't, because the leading Democratic Candidate was caught on tape doing the exact same (the details in Biden's case are actually far worse, in fact) thing the Democrats are currently trying to impeach Trump over and the media acts like it was nothing
Shame on you. You are doing nothing more here than adopting the Russian propaganda and party line which has been discredited by the entire Intelligence Community and by several other governments who are our allies. Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election is a fictional narrative created by the Russians to deflect our heat on them. The Hunter Biden involvement as a director of Burisma, which Hunter has acknowledged publicly was inappropriate, has nothing to do with what Trump did while serving as president or in any way justifies his subsequent actions. The removal of the former prosecutor, Shokin, which was assisted by Joe Biden was at the behest of not only our government but also at the behest of most other members of NATO. All acknowledge that Shokin's open corruption and agree that he needed to be removed. Your adoption of this narrative is not only inappropriate and contrary to what the Intelligence Community has stated, but it is also on its face disingenuous.
Vladimir Putin sends his thanks.

Links:
Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases
Senate Intel found no evidence of 2016 Ukrainian interference
Is that you Mitt?
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
Agreed. Doesnt contradict my previous post. We have an election in less than a year. Let the citizenry be the jury.

The citizens have spoken. They elected their Represenatives to protect the constitution.

So we wait for an election that Trumpf is trying to control by illegally continuing to elicit the support of foreign nations to get him re-elected? Allow Trumpf to continue to abuse the power of his office to get himself elected as he did with the help of Russia in 2016...and as he undoubtedly will do again do if given the opportunity?

Russia, as we know, is on standby and eager to again participate. And Trumpf has already publically urged China in on the action.

If your oncologist told you that your cancer would likely begin to metastasize soon, would you wait 12 months before seeking treatment?

Now is the time to remove this cancer threatening our constitutional republic with imminent and irreversible harm.
Save our Democracy.
Fast track the process.
Impeach the (and I quote) Bastard.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
So do I read you correctly, Mr. ShaferFan04? Do you honestly believe that what Clinton did was more offensive than what has been done by Trump?

That it was more offensive is self evident. Cheating on your wife is by itself offensive. Doing it with a White House intern, inserting strange objects up her, ejaculating in the Oval Office- these things just added to the offensiveness.

The Trump thing isn't offensive in the slightest. It was an innocuous phone call of the sort Presidents make every day discussing a topic few people even have any interest in. That is why the ratings for the Impeachment Hearings have been so low.

I don't think either think is Impeachable, but in terms of offensiveness, there is little doubt Clinton's unfair impeachment at least brought to the table something normal people could get agitated about.

And as for the notion that Republicans would never have been able to get a media campaign behind them if they tried to go after a Democrat for the same thing that the Dems are going after Trump for right now, we don't even have to speculate on that. We know for a fact they couldn't, because the leading Democratic Candidate was caught on tape doing the exact same (the details in Biden's case are actually far worse, in fact) thing the Democrats are currently trying to impeach Trump over and the media acts like it was nothing.

What crap.
Funny though, your feigned indignation at Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinski getting it on. I’ll give you this--they were pretty sloppy with the semen even by White House standards. To this day I do not understand why she didn't go for the creampie. The cigar, though, what can I say? Word on the street has it that the battery in her vibrator went dead so they did what they could with what they had. So I'm thinking that you’ve got to give them an A for improvisation. Maybe an A+.

I’ll bet that like Comrade Webspinner, you are a true Trumpfian, a blind supporter who would still be behind that ahole even if it were disclosed that Trumpf had a menage e twa with Kellyanne Conway and Hope Hicks (Mulvaney filming) with all three of the participants giving each other a golden shower and then lighting up stogies they had used on each other during their fun (a White House tradition)...and grinning from ear to ear as they watched Mulvaney playback the event.
Did I get that right?
You a true Trumpfian?

C’mon. Please share.
It's okay.
We’re all adults.
No, wait.
Maybe not.
 

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,080
4,118
113
i watch your language. I am allowing only because you are responding to the position taken by others.
 

WebSpinner

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 7, 2003
20,520
825
113
if you have no argument, you toss just trivial cesspool bits at us. the transcript is proof that trump did nothing wrong, nothing illegal and certainly nothing impeachable and all the witnesses even stated that, when asked directly. so funny that the house managers and shumer demanded that the senate call more witnesses. that was the house's job, build the case and when ready, if you have the goods, bring it to the senate. not the senate's job to call witnesses, only to hear the house's case and vote nay or yea. their case was baseless, no evidence of a crime, in fact they did not charge him with a crime and it is over. this was purely politics reflecting that the dems still cannot get over losing a free and fair election in 2016 and more importantly attempting to sabotage trump in the 2020 election. have never heard so many lies being thrown out, the dems are exactly what they accuse trump of being. this should not have been a party line vote, the dems know there was absolutely nothing there, they wanted it to be but they are not that stupid and know none of you guys are stupid either. when are you going to quit buying into all of this trash the dems and media keep placing before you. at some point, you have to say, we have been had, these people are just terrible and am not going to listen to anything else they try and lie to me about or you can just keep on getting slapped in the face and other things which i will not mention here but you know what i mean.
 

Wood Hall

Star
Jan 26, 2015
1,375
1,358
113
Agreed. Should be even a higher standard since impeachment is in essence the the overturning of the voice of the electorate
Ha. I would have loved the "due process" the orange douchebag says he was denied. Then Trump's minions would have had to appear when subpoenaed, and actually been forced to testify under oath.

Seems to me when ODB's friends get "due process," they get thrown in jail. Manafort, Cohen, Flynn, Stones, Gates, Pinedo, Papadopoulos, van der Zwaan. Certainly more to come.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
if you have no argument, you toss just trivial cesspool bits at us. the transcript is proof that trump did nothing wrong, nothing illegal and certainly nothing impeachable and all the witnesses even stated that, when asked directly. so funny that the house managers and shumer demanded that the senate call more witnesses. that was the house's job, build the case and when ready, if you have the goods, bring it to the senate. not the senate's job to call witnesses, only to hear the house's case and vote nay or yea. their case was baseless, no evidence of a crime, in fact they did not charge him with a crime and it is over. this was purely politics reflecting that the dems still cannot get over losing a free and fair election in 2016 and more importantly attempting to sabotage trump in the 2020 election. have never heard so many lies being thrown out, the dems are exactly what they accuse trump of being. this should not have been a party line vote, the dems know there was absolutely nothing there, they wanted it to be but they are not that stupid and know none of you guys are stupid either. when are you going to quit buying into all of this trash the dems and media keep placing before you. at some point, you have to say, we have been had, these people are just terrible and am not going to listen to anything else they try and lie to me about or you can just keep on getting slapped in the face and other things which i will not mention here but you know what i mean.
Trump’s non-removal was expected. It was nothing more than a political exercise; not a vindication. One hundred years hence, I hope your progeny knows that for this country in the Year 2020 you favored a monarchy to a republic.

Plus this: Everything you said above is either inaccurate, mistaken, or a combination of the two. Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain knows that what Trump did was wrong and that it was impeachable. To suggest that extorting an important ally for personal political purposes is not the type of thing that would warrant removal from office may warrant consideration, but to deny reality is not only deplorable, it is also dangerous. Your “alternative facts” system of epistemology is not only counter to progress, it is perilously regressive.

Be that as it may, it appears we have another year to deal with this brainless and insensitive slug, and you have another year to savor your ignorance and doltishly echo the proclamations of spineless politicians.
 

WebSpinner

Spider's Club
Gold Member
May 7, 2003
20,520
825
113
laugh every time the dems or their crew of what ever they are, not good enough to even be minions, say that trump is trying to be a dictator or monarch. a prez has many powers to exercise and most of them do just that and it does not mean they are above the law or a king or a dictator, just means they are going about their business with the things afforded them by the constitution. heck, one of the impeachment articles was for obstruction when what trump did was invoke executive privilege, which almost every prez since GW has done. even jonathan turley, constitution scholar and a lib democrat, told the judiciary committee, if you impeach with what you have, YOU ARE THE ONES ABUSING POWER. they lost because they had no case at all, were only attempting to hurt, rough-up, trump and all they did was improve his approval numbers. BUT, they made the country go through this stupid charade, just like the russia deal and that is petty, selfish and short sighted. funny how it is always the dems talking about getting rid of the divisive atmosphere in our country, when they are the ones perpetrating it on us. most citizens, certainly conservative ones, are going about their business while the dems are marching in the streets wearing masks and beating people with sticks, constantly down grading the prez and not even telling their audiences about the great things which have been done, though they do feel it. if the dems want to stop the divisiveness, then quit this stupid, silly, childish, behavior they exhibit and have been since even before the election. you don't like someone, you beat him in an election not by trying to erase him on fake crap.
 

AnnapSpider

Graduate Assistant
May 8, 2003
4,136
1,136
113
Annapolis, MD
Trump’s non-removal was expected. It was nothing more than a political exercise; not a vindication. One hundred years hence, I hope your progeny knows that for this country in the Year 2020 you favored a monarchy to a republic.

Plus this: Everything you said above is either inaccurate, mistaken, or a combination of the two. Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain knows that what Trump did was wrong and that it was impeachable. To suggest that extorting an important ally for personal political purposes is not the type of thing that would warrant removal from office may warrant consideration, but to deny reality is not only deplorable, it is also dangerous. Your “alternative facts” system of epistemology is not only counter to progress, it is perilously regressive.

Be that as it may, it appears we have another year to deal with this brainless and insensitive slug, and you have another year to savor your ignorance and doltishly echo the proclamations of spineless politicians.
The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
 

urfan1

Moderator
Moderator
Jan 9, 2003
18,080
4,118
113
the rhetoric on both sides is beyond anything I can recall.
 

KE Spider

Team Manager
Mar 8, 2010
1,656
2,526
113
the rhetoric on both sides is beyond anything I can recall.
I struggle to get my head around the level of HATE on both sides. Get a grip folks. We are fellow citizens. We only move forward by working together.

You can't have the Speaker tearing up of the State of the Union address from the dais. WTF was that? Did that advance her position with the average citizen or turn them off? Hatred is blinding and consumes the holder.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
iSpider said:





Trump’s non-removal was expected. It was nothing more than a political exercise; not a vindication. One hundred years hence, I hope your progeny knows that for this country in the Year 2020 you favored a monarchy to a republic.

Plus this: Everything you said above is either inaccurate, mistaken, or a combination of the two. Everyone on the planet with a functioning brain knows that what Trump did was wrong and that it was impeachable. To suggest that extorting an important ally for personal political purposes is not the type of thing that would warrant removal from office may warrant consideration, but to deny reality is not only deplorable, it is also dangerous. Your “alternative facts” system of epistemology is not only counter to progress, it is perilously regressive.

Be that as it may, it appears we have another year to deal with this brainless and insensitive slug, and you have another year to savor your ignorance and doltishly echo the proclamations of spineless politicians.

The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
[/quote]
Only surpassed by the stupidity on the right.
 

iSpider

Graduate Assistant
Dec 31, 2007
3,245
879
113
urfan1 said:





the rhetoric on both sides is beyond anything I can recall.

I struggle to get my head around the level of HATE on both sides. Get a grip folks. We are fellow citizens. We only move forward by working together.

You can't have the Speaker tearing up of the State of the Union address from the dais. WTF was that? Did that advance her position with the average citizen or turn them off? Hatred is blinding and consumes the holder.
[/quote]
And what do you think might be the source of this division? Might a Trumpfian White Nationalistic campaign inspired by white supremicists like Mike Brannon and David Duke be at the root?

A former Republican icon, Steve Schmidt, said of Trump, [paraphrasing] “....we in America—right now, at this hour—need to to understand and acknowledge that we have a lawless president, a vile president, a corrupt president, a mean, cruel president, who is seeking to remake the world order...”

He tweeted "the Republican Party ... is fully the party of Trump. It is corrupt, indecent and immoral. With the exception of a few Governors like Baker, Hogan and Kasich it is filled with feckless cowards who disgrace and dishonor the legacies of the party's greatest leaders ... Today the GOP has become a danger to our democracy and our values."
 

AnnapSpider

Graduate Assistant
May 8, 2003
4,136
1,136
113
Annapolis, MD
The hypocrisy of the left never ceases to amaze me.
Only surpassed by the stupidity on the right.[/QUOTE]
“Stupidity “ is that the way you deal with people you don’t agree with by resorting to personal attacks? Even that shows your hypocrisy. Aren’t you supposed be supportive of your
fellow man?
 

Latest posts