Not Impeachment, But a Coup: a Disgusting Defense of Collapsing Imperial Order [Archive]

View Full Version : Not Impeachment, But a Coup: a Disgusting Defense of Collapsing Imperial Order

Swordsmyth

10-07-2019, 12:31 AM

As the Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives are racing to impeach Donald Trump, the President tweeted on October 1, "As I learn more and more each day, I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a coup." The Democrats who have begun impeachment proceedings, such as Representatives Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, have been demanding the removal of Trump from office since virtually the day of his inauguration. With the announcement of a "whistle blower's" complaint that Trump abused his position to demand that Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky aid in digging up "dirt" on Joe Biden, his possible opponent in 2020, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had previously tried to tamp down discussion of impeachment, suddenly shifted her position on September 24, and the race for impeachment was on.
What led to this sudden rush to judgement against Trump?
There are three significant reasons for the flight-forward lunacy coming from the anti-Trump crowd:
1. The investigation launched by Attorney General William Barr into the origin of the whole fabricated Russiagate fiasco, which was first announced by President Trump on May 24, is moving into a decisive phase. In that announcement, Trump said he tasked Barr with the job of conducting a broad probe, saying he hopes he looks into the role of the United Kingdom, Australia and Ukraine, at a minimum. Along with the soon-to-be-revealed findings of Justice Department Inspector General Horowitz on fraud committed by Obama administration intelligence officials in obtaining FISA warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham are honing in on the networks which launched the attack against Trump. They are investigating what role was played by foreign governments in the operations against the Trump campaign in 2016, and then in the regime change coup against him after his election. What they will likely prove is that Russiagate was a continuation of British imperial geopolitical manipulations to insure that there could be no improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, with Ukraine serving as a key battleground to disrupt Trump's efforts to develop cooperative relations with Russia. The February 2014 regime change coup against a democratically-elected government in Ukraine was run by British and U.S. intelligence operatives, working with "left-wing" Soros' -funded networks and "right-wing" neocons, who backed violent Nazi militia networks involved in the Maidan Square uprising. The point man for the Obama administration in handling Ukraine was Vice President Joe Biden.
2. The failure of the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller to find evidence of Russian meddling, Trump collusion with Russia, and obstruction of justice by the President, freed him to move forward with his intent to improve relations with Russia. The firing of the Director of National Intelligence Coats and National Security Adviser Bolton, both of whom are committed war hawks who had been acting within the administration against Trump's desires to put an end to the regime change wars of the last two decades, demonstrated that he was now taking control of his administration, especially its foreign policy. This has been a fear of the imperial geopoliticians from the beginning of his presidency, and it was reaffirmed by his discussions at the Osaka G20 summit with Putin, Xi, India's Modi, and then his trip to meet with North Korean President Kim following the summit, that he is committed to follow through with his intent to pull the U.S. out of the provocative strategic geometry of his predecessors, Bush and Obama. The potential for a realignment organized by Trump, outside the Old Paradigm defined by geopolitics, represents an existential threat to the Trans-Atlantic elites who have used divide-and-conquer schemes and endless regional wars to enforce their designs.
3. The onrush of a financial crisis, which combines the threat of the popping of the "everything bubble" with the collapse of a staggering volume of unsustainable debt, has been met by the global financial elites and their central bank operatives by a return to short-term bailouts, in the form of overnight loans of up to $75 billion per day to "ease" a liquidity crunch, and a concerted push for creating a new Green financial bubble. The recent threat by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, at the U.N. Climate Summit, that those banks and firms which do not accept a Green financial dictatorship will be cut off from credit by central banks, is a key feature of this agenda. Trump's repeated denunciations of the Federal Reserve policy, combined with his open rejection of the fraud of "man-made climate change", has heightened the panic of these financial circles that he may respond to the collapse with economic nationalist measures, which reflect the influence of American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. Those behind Russiagate come from the same circles as those who ran the persecution of LaRouche, including William Weld, who is running against Trump for the Republican nomination, and Robert Mueller, who took over from Weld the running of the Get LaRouche task force.
Why Ukraine?
The excuse for launching the latest impeachment frenzy is the release of a "whistle blower's" report on a call made by Trump to Ukraine's new President Zelensky, on July 25. Trump acknowledges that in that conversation, he asked for Zelensky's aid in investigating leads into the role of Ukrainian networks in setting Russiagate into motion, as well as the involvement of Joe Biden, when he was Vice President, in shutting down an investigation into charges of corruption involving his son, Hunter, who was a board member of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma. Trump attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who has been looking into a variety of leads involving Ukraine, stated that he began the investigation because he believed "there was a lot of evidence" that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and the Clinton campaign -- which were involved in launching the initial charges against the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016 -- "had a close connection to Ukrainian officials."
Among matters under investigation, in addition to the charges of Biden's personal role in shutting down an investigation into his son's role at Burisma, by threatening to cancel aid to Ukraine if the prosecutor in that case was not fired immediately, was the surfacing of a "black book", which was allegedly a ledger of payments to Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, from the Yanukovych government. While this ledger was never produced as evidence, its purported existence was used by Mueller in the conviction of Manafort for money laundering. Manafort's conviction was the first big success for Mueller. Giuliani said that Manafort's attorney told him that the "black book" did not exist! In addition to Giuliani's probe, Senators Grassley and Johnson wrote a letter to Barr saying they will investigate the Ukrainian government's role on behalf of the Clinton campaign in framing Manafort. "Such allegations of corruption deserve due scrutiny," they wrote in the letter.
While the wealth of details about the leads from Ukraine is beyond the scope of this article, there are several points which must be made (1.). One involves the dirty role played by lead impeachment operative Rep. Schiff, who knew of the charges against Trump before the whistle blower filed his complaint. The whistle blower, who has been identified by the New York Times as a CIA official, approached a House Intelligence Committee aide to brief him, before filing his complaint. The aide then reported to Schiff, the Committee chair, raising the question of whether or not Schiff played a role in drafting what was contained in the complaint.
Secondly, there is the question raised by Trump of looking into whether CrowdStrike, the firm which claimed it had proof of Russian hacking of the DNC server, which it was supposed to be protecting, had moved that server to Ukraine. There are many reports of Ukrainian hackers having left digital finger prints all over elements of Russiagate, working with networks in the NSA and CIA. The CrowdStrike claim of Russian "hacking" was never proven -- in fact, the server was never given to the FBI to investigate, and the only forensic investigation into the charges of Russian hacking, by former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney and associates, demonstrated that the Clinton/DNC files were not hacked, but captured through a download, i.e., were taken as a result of an "inside" job.
Third is the simple fact that the Putin-hating networks involved in the Ukraine coup overlap those trying to frame Trump in Russiagate. These include "ex"-MI6 operative Christopher Steele, of the notorious "pee-pee" dossier, funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who worked with State Department official Jonathan Winer, in filing dozens of reports on Ukraine in the period of the 2014 coup; the Soros networks, which provided funds for both the Ukrainian uprising and the anti-Trump insurgency; a variety of anti-Trump neocons; and CIA and U.S. intel operatives, in collusion with Russophobes and Trump regime change plotters John Brennan, the former CIA Director, and James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. There are reports that both Brennan and Clapper are terrified by the Durham investigation. Brennan has not only been a leading instigator in demanding impeachment, but responded to the latest whistle blower report by calling for more whistle blowers to come forward. In contrast, when he was CIA chief, he took the lead in demanding prosecution of those who blew the whistle on his dirty ops, including torture and illegal spying on Americans.

More at: https://harley.larouchepac.com/not_impeachment_but_a_coup_dems_attack_on_trump_is _a_disgusting_defense_of_collapsing_imperial_order

UWDude

10-07-2019, 01:12 AM

Larouchies are dedicated, I'll give them that.
It's like some unholy alliance of the unlikeliest characters is forming in opposition to the professional AI take over.

Swordsmyth

10-07-2019, 01:16 AM

Larouchies are dedicated, I'll give them that.
It's like some unholy alliance of the unlikeliest characters is forming in opposition to the professional AI take over.

https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fscreenrant.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F12%2FRebel-Pilots-in-Rogue-One-A-Star-Wars-Story.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

acptulsa

10-07-2019, 06:30 AM

Larouchies are dedicated, I'll give them that.
It's like some unholy alliance of the unlikeliest characters is forming in opposition to the professional AI take over.

Sounds like someone's been watching bad sci fi on acid. How does that go again?

The rest of you were too sane and resisting division too much to own up to braying such a stupid conspiracy theory that was CLEARLY false.

Superfluous Man

10-07-2019, 06:36 AM

Larouchies are dedicated, I'll give them that.
It's like some unholy alliance of the unlikeliest characters is forming in opposition to the professional AI take over.

Unlikeliest?

Hardly.

Swordsmyth

10-08-2019, 12:57 AM

The Syria pullout will make the empire even more desperate, desperate people do stupid things.

Swordsmyth

10-08-2019, 09:07 PM

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1181757119286140929

1181757119286140929

What was it Judge Swamp said about it supposedly being an impeachable offense if there wasn't an investigation in the US?
Now that is double stupid.

Swordsmyth

11-10-2019, 12:20 AM

The word “coup” shifted to a new level of formalized meaning last week when members of the political resistance showed up to remove President Trump wearing military uniforms.
Not only did U.S. military leadership remain silent to the optics and purpose, but in the testimony of Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman he admits to giving instructions to ignore the instructions from a sitting United States President.
In the absence of push-back from the Joint Chiefs, from this moment forth, the impression is tacit U.S. military support for the Vindman objective.

https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/alexander-vindman.jpg?w=640&h=336 (https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/alexander-vindman.jpg)
Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council official, testified before congressional committees conducting an impeachment inquiry on October 29 (https://www.cbsnews.com/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-latest-alexander-vindman-to-testify-2019-10-29/), wearing a full military uniform.
To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance. The willful blindness is concerning, but it gets much worse.
https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/trump-tweet-coup.jpg?w=554&h=250 (https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/trump-tweet-coup.jpg)
Beyond the debate about the optics of the “coup“, within the testimony of Lt. Col Vindman, the witness readily admits to understanding the officially established policy of the President of The United States (an agreement between President Trump and President Zelenskyy), and stunningly admits that two weeks later he was giving instructions to his Ukrainian counterpart to ignore those instructions and policies.
The coup against President Donald Trump went from soft, to hard. Consider…
The testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman is available here (https://t.co/N2UMBCA3nl?amp=1). [SCRIBD pdf below (https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf)]

More at: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/11/09/the-coup-against-a-sitting-u-s-president-became-official-on-october-29th-2019/

Swordsmyth

11-10-2019, 09:21 PM

President Trump calls it a witch hunt, but it really is a coup against American democracy. The Democrats who want Trump impeached don’t realize this. They just want Trump impeached because they don’t like him. The impeach Trump people don’t understand that if the coup against the elected president succeeds, every future president will know that if he attempts to “drain the swamp” or bring any changes not acceptable to the ruling elite, he, too, will be destroyed. Voters who want real change will also get the message and give up trying to elect a president or members of the House and Senate who will be responsive to voters. It will mean the end of democracy and accountable government. Unhindered rule by the Deep State and associated elites will take democracy’s place.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/Not-So-Silent-Coup-A.F.-Branco-1280x720.jpg
It is unfortunate that progressives do not understand this. Progressives want real change and Trump impeached, but these desires are at variance with one another.

Few, if any, of the impeach Trump crowd are paying any attention to the fabricated case against Trump that has taken the place of the Russiagate fabrication that failed. They could not care less what the case is or whether it is a fabrication. Dislike of Trump suffices.
Nevertheless, let’s look at the fabricated case.
First of all, the alleged whistleblower is not a legitimate whistleblower. He is Eric Ciaramella, a CIA officer with a second-hand complaint who met with House Intelligence (sic) chairman Adam Schiff a month ahead to orchestrate the event. Ciaramella served on Obama’s staff when VP Joe Biden was point man for Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked with CIA Director John Brennan, the architect of “Russiagate,” and with a Democratic National Committee operative who encouraged Ukraine officials to come up with dirt on President Trump.
All of this and more has caused the “whistleblower” to withdraw from testifying.
Desperate for a substitute, Democrats have come up with tainted career bureaucrats who favor military aid to Ukraine and a hard line toward Russia. Bill Taylor a US diplomat in Ukraine claims that Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, said that US military aid to Ukraine was conditional on Ukraine reopening the government’s investigation into the Ukrainian company, Burisma, an investigation that VP Joe Biden had closed down. Burisma is the company that paid as much as $1.75 million to Biden and his son.
Taylor claims that another bureaucrat, Tim Morrison, told him that Sondland communicated the “quid pro quo” to an aide to Zelensky.
Sondland rejects the claims by Taylor and Morrison.
A Ukrainian born rabid anti-Russian US Army officer serving on the National Security Council, Alexander Vindman, also offers two cents of unverified quid pro quo claims. Vindman’s motive seems to be that President Trump is inclined to follow a different policy toward Ukraine than Vindman prefers.
This is the extent of the case against Trump. Amazingly weak considering that Ukrainian president Zelensky has stated publicly that there was no quid pro quo and that the released transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation shows no quid pro quo.
Now for the issue of the alleged quid pro quo. It seems that everyone on both sides of the argument takes for granted without a second of thought that if there was a quid pro quo, there was an offense, possibly one sufficiently offensive to warrant impeachment. This is utter ignorant nonsense.
Quid pro quos are endemic in US foreign policy and always have been. The US government offered Ecuador president Lenin Moreno a $4.2 billion IMF loan in exchange for revoking Julian Assange’s asylum. Moreno took the deal. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/assange-bought-4-2-billion-former-ecuadorian-president-confirms-imf-loan-exchange-assange/5674374)
Washington offered the Venezuelan military money to overthrow President Maduro. The military refused the offer.
Dozens of examples come readily to mind. Research would produce enough to fill a book.
What do you think the sanctions are that the US president places on countries? They are punishments that Washington imposes for not accepting Washington’s deal.
As for a quid pro quo deal between the US executive branch and president of Ukraine, we have VP Joe Biden’s boast that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating corruption (https://www.dailywire.com/news/ukraine-prosecutor-that-biden-got-fired-says-he-was-told-to-back-off-investigation-report-says?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Actengage) in the firm that had purchased US protection by putting Biden’s son, Hunter, on Burisma’s board. Joe Biden brags in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that he gave the Ukrainian president 6 hours to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion in US aid.

Finally, there is the question of the whistleblower law. (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/30/the-whistleblower-complaint-is-an-orchestration-not-in-compliance-with-whistleblower-law/) If this interpretation sent to me by a reliable source is correct, there is no basis in law for the alleged whistleblower complaint.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/paul-craig-roberts-successful-coup-against-trump-will-murder-american-democracy

The “Whistleblower Complaint” Is an Orchestration Not in Compliance with Whistleblower Law
This has come to me from a knowledgeable source:
1—-The statute allowing such complaints is 50 USC sec. 3033. Read it for yourself.
a–The statute requires the complaint to involve “intelligence activity”. The “intelligence activity whistle blower complaint” we have been talking about has nothing to do with “intelligence activity” as legally required by the statute. Since this complaint was filed, accepted and treated as legitimate, was the drafting, filing, and handling of this particular “intelligence activity whistle blower complaint” a political act rather than whistle blowing?
b–Under the statute the whistle blowing must concern either a person or activity that is under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence. One cannot use this statute to whistle blow to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, a subordinate official of the DNI, on anything that the DNI has no authority over. In other words, nothing in the statute allows an “intelligence activity whistleblower” complaint to be made concerning the president or his phone calls. Such matters are not supervised by the DNI and are outside the jurisdiction of this statute. The acceptance of this complaint by the IG was improper under the clear language of the statute. The same would be true about complaints regarding other government activities under the authority of other government agencies or branches.
Conclusion? If the complaint was improper under the statute, it was improperly filed, improperly accepted, and the filer was not even a whistleblower as defined in the statute. How and why did this happen? Who drafted the complaint? Surely not the “whistleblower” alone. Did members of the national security establishment and/or members of Congress assist? If this can be shown, then shouldn’t this be considered a political complaint drafted to support impeachment proceedings and to divert our attention from upcoming events. If demonstrated to be true, this will be seen by many Americans as an attempted coup against a president elected under the procedures outlined in our the constitution. Forget Trump—this is about the unity of our country and our democracy—or what’s left of it. The demand that Trump be impeached is so intense within the Democratic Party that even early doubters like Tulsi Gabbard have been forced to toe the line. Fasten your seat belts, I suspect this will get very nasty.
2—There is a Clinton era treaty with Ukraine signed in 2000 I did not know existed which seems to authorize the very conversation Trump was having with the President of Ukraine. Here is the treaty language:
Article 1 that “[t]he Contracting States shall provide mutual assistance, in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty, in connection with the investigation, prosecution, and prevention of offenses, and in proceedings related to criminal matters.”
3—This has harmed the standing of Zelensky. When this became public, Zelensky was involved in intense negotiations with Russia in hopes of ending the war in the Donbass and improving Ukrainian/Russian relations. Was part of the motivation for the filing this complainan effort to derail those negotiations? In other words, was the filing of this complaint triggered more by fears on the part of the US deep state that Zelensky’s may actually make peace with Russian rather than constitutional concerns or fear of cutting military aid to Ukraine? In other words, was the CIA/MIC afraid that peace might break out? BTW—as another e-mail will show, this entire debacle has been politically damaging to Zelensky. This is yet another serious consequence.

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/30/the-whistleblower-complaint-is-an-orchestration-not-in-compliance-with-whistleblower-law/

Swordsmyth

11-11-2019, 02:28 AM

Democrats in Congress, Democratic operatives in the deep state, and co-conspirators in the corporate leftist propaganda conglomerate are attempting to drive Trump from office. This hyperpartisan process rightly has been called an attempted coup. It is also a brazen fraud. In the immortal words of Woody Allen’s Fielding Melish, “it is a travesty . . . a travesty of a mockery of a sham of a mockery of a travesty of two mockeries of a sham.”
But in a deeper sense, isn’t it clear that the coup has already happened? By trying to overthrow the results of a presidential election, the political elite is merely showing its hand; America has an elite that believes it now rules in America. We have an elite that does not accept the American idea of government—government by, for, and of the people.
According to our self-selected rulers, the election of Hillary Clinton was the whole point of 2016. They had designated Hillary to succeed Obama. She was to continue the project of fundamentally transforming America that was the focus of the Obama Administration. The voters were supposed to ratify the elite’s selection of Clinton.

But voters failed to do what they were supposed to do. From their point of view, if you voted for Trump, you let them down. By voting for Trump, you enraged the people who have designated themselves to rule you.
They are far beyond merely disappointed in you. You are a deplorable if you voted for Trump or if you have come around to supporting him. The people who are asserting that they rule America intend to teach you a lesson: “You have disappointed us, and we are going all out—with this fraudulent attempt to impeach Trump, with hyperpartisan ‘journalism,’ and by means of open borders, ballot harvesting, armies of dead people voting, whatever it takes—to make certain that this never happens again. Let this be a lesson to you about what voting means and what voting does not mean in the new, fundamentally transformed America.”

The truth about those who intend to rule us with or without our consent is that, instead of putting America first, they have been using the power of government to advance an anti-American agenda—open borders, hollowing out our economy to the benefit of the Chinese, drowning the American voter in a flood of Muslims and people from the Third World; the list goes on and on.

Trump, of course, represents a threat to the elite’s project of selling America down the river. He has to be stopped, and those Americans who have not gotten with the program for America the elite has chosen for us must be taught a hard lesson about who now rules in America.

https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/10/has-the-coup-already-happened/

Sonny Tufts

11-11-2019, 08:15 AM

It's ironic that the Trump apologists are wailing about the impeachment proceedings being a threat to democracy. They're oblivious to the fact that Trump is President only because of the Electoral College, a profoundly undemocratic institution.

Swordsmyth

11-11-2019, 06:04 PM

dude58677

11-11-2019, 06:18 PM

Swordsmyth

11-13-2019, 04:52 PM

There are at least 10 reasons why the Dem impeachment “inquiry” (https://nypost.com/2019/11/06/open-hearings-in-trump-impeachment-inquiry-to-begin-next-week-schiff-says/) is really a coup.
1) Impeachment 24/7. The “inquiry,” supposedly prompted by President Trump’s Ukrainian call, is only the most recent coup seeking to overturn the 2016 election.
Usually, the serial futile attempts — with the exception of the Mueller debacle — were characterized by about a month of media hysteria. We remember the voting-machines-fraud hoax, the Logan Act, the Emoluments Clause, the 25th Amendment, the McCabe-Rosenstein faux coup and various Michael Avenatti-Stormy Daniels-Michael Cohen psychodramas. Ukraine, then, isn’t unique, but simply another mini-coup.
2) False whistleblowers. The “whistleblower” is no whistleblower by any common definition of the noun. He has no incriminating documents, no information at all. He doesn’t even have firsthand evidence of wrongdoing.
Instead, the whistleblower relied on secondhand water-cooler gossip (https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/complaint-alleges-whistleblower-who-touched-off-impeachment-inquiry-violated-federal-law/) about a leaked presidential call. Even his mangled version of the call didn’t match that of official transcribers.

He wasn’t disinterested but had a long history of partisanship. He was a protégé of many of Trump’s most adamant opponents, including Susan Rice, John Brennan and Joe Biden. He did not follow protocol by going first to the inspector general but instead caucused with the staff of Rep. Adam Schiff’s impeachment inquiry. Neither the whistleblower nor his doppelganger, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, was bothered by the activities of the Bidens or by the Obama decision not to arm Ukraine. Their outrage, in other words, was not about Ukraine but over Trump.
3) First-term impeachment. The Clinton and Nixon inquiries were directed at second-term presidencies, when there were no more electoral remedies for alleged wrongdoing. By contrast, Trump is up for election in less than a year. Impeachment, then, seems a partisan exercise in either circumventing a referendum election or in damaging a president seeking re-election.
4) No special-counsel finding. In the past, special counsels have found felonious presidential behavior, such as cited in Leon Jaworski’s and Ken Starr’s investigations. By contrast, special counsel Robert Mueller spent 22 months and $35 million, and yet his largely partisan law and investigative team found no “collusion” and no actionable presidential obstruction of that non-crime.
5) No bipartisanship. There was broad bipartisan support for the Nixon impeachment inquiry and even some for the Clinton impeachment. There is none for the Schiff impeachment effort.
6) No high crimes or misdemeanors. There is no proof of any actual crime. Asking a foreign head of state to look into past corruption is pro forma. That Joe Biden is now Trump’s potential rival doesn’t exculpate possible wrongdoing in his past as vice president, when his son used the Biden name for lucrative gain.
In other words, it is certainly not a crime for a president to adapt his own foreign policy to fit particular countries nor to request of a foreign government with a history of corruption seeking US aid to ensure that it has not in the past colluded with prior US officials in suspicious activity.

7) Thought crimes? Even if there were ever a quid, there is no quo: Unlike the case of the Obama administration, the Trump administration did supply arms to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians apparently did not reinvestigate the Bidens.
8) Double standards. There is now no standard of equality under the law. Instead, we are entering the jurisprudence of junta politics. If an alleged quid pro quo is an impeachable offense, should Biden have been impeached or indicted for clearly leveraging the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor for dubious reasons by threats of withholding US aid?
9) The Schiff factor. Schiff is now de facto chief impeachment prosecutor. He has repeatedly lied about the certainty of impending Mueller indictments or bombshells. He flat-out lied that he and his staff had no prior contact with the whistleblower. He made up a version of the Trump call that didn’t represent the transcript, and when called out, he begged off by claiming he was offering a “parody.”
Tradition and protocol argue that the proper place for impeachment inquiries and investigations is the House Judiciary Committee. The hyperpartisan Schiff has hijacked that committee’s historic role.
10) Precedent. The indiscriminate efforts to remove Trump over the past three years, when coupled with the latest impeachment gambit, have now set a precedent in which the out party can use impeachment as a tool to embarrass, threaten or seek to remove a sitting president and reverse an election. We are witnessing constitutional government dissipating before our eyes.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/10-reasons-why-this-impeachment-inquiry-is-really-a-coup/

PRB

11-13-2019, 07:57 PM

Good to know we got some bootlickers here who will kiss up to the President no matter what he does. What happened to "government should be afraid of their people, not vice versa"?

PRB

11-13-2019, 07:58 PM

Swordsmyth

11-13-2019, 08:02 PM

Good to know we got some bootlickers here who will kiss up to the President no matter what he does. What happened to "government should be afraid of their people, not vice versa"?
You are the one licking the boot of the deepstate.
The deepstate has declared that all must fear and obey them and that we are not allowed to elect a President to change their policies or investigate their crimes.

Swordsmyth

11-13-2019, 08:02 PM

you're seriously surprised Trump's supporters are hypocrites?
The only hypocrisy is yours.

PRB

11-13-2019, 08:05 PM

You are the one licking the boot of the deepstate.
The deepstate has declared that all must fear and obey them and that we are not allowed to elect a President to change their policies or investigate their crimes.

Deepstate is your fake boogeyman to justify everything tyrants do. I thought we were a non-democracy, somehow people like you always complain about unelected power when you're on the losing end.

Swordsmyth

11-13-2019, 08:09 PM

Deepstate is your fake boogeyman to justify everything tyrants do. I thought we were a non-democracy, somehow people like you always complain about unelected power when you're on the losing end.
LOL
Your defense of treasonous coups to overthrow the duly elected President by unelected bureaucrats is pathetic.
That is not Republicanism, it's tyranny.

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 03:19 AM

https://youtu.be/jIeej0ERxWc

PRB

11-14-2019, 01:19 PM

LOL
Your defense of treasonous coups to overthrow the duly elected President by unelected bureaucrats is pathetic.
That is not Republicanism, it's tyranny.

being elected doesn't give you permission to violate laws. that's what law enforcement means.

Superfluous Man

11-14-2019, 01:50 PM

being elected doesn't give you permission to violate laws. that's what law enforcement means.

And even if you don't violate laws, being elected doesn't give you permission to do anything at all that Congress (which is incidentally comprised of elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats) deems impeachable. High crimes and misdemeanors aren't limited to violations of laws.

PRB

11-14-2019, 02:03 PM

And even if you don't violate laws, being elected doesn't give you permission to do anything at all that Congress (which is incidentally comprised of elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats) deems impeachable. High crimes and misdemeanors aren't limited to violations of laws.

fair enough :)

pcosmar

11-14-2019, 03:07 PM

Coup ?

I thought that was when the Democrats elected Trump.

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 03:37 PM

being elected doesn't give you permission to violate laws. that's what law enforcement means.

No law was violated.
Trump was required by law to do what he did.

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 03:38 PM

enhanced_deficit

11-14-2019, 03:44 PM

Not Impeachment, But a Coup: a Disgusting Defense of Collapsing Imperial Order

A coup (suggesting some major CHANGE) would be a more serious event, this may be closer to being a mutual left wing neocons vs right wing neocons managed circus.

Forget The Impeachment Circus…Here’s What Congress Should Really Investigate! – Ron Paul Institute (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541070-Official-Impeachment-Hearing-Thread&p=6884342&viewfull=1#post6884342)
While the country is being dragged through the three ring impeachment circus – which is all about politics and nothing about policy, President Trump’s secret wars and interventions across the globe continue. Venezuela, Middle East, Lithuania…the intervention is on overdrive. But Congress has no interest in its Constitutional obligations when it comes to war. Political theater is far more exciting.
youtube.com/watch?v=eH48AP5eRK0

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 07:19 PM

Authored by Paul Craig Roberts, (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/11/13/the-latest-false-news-on-the-trump-impeachment/)
As the media are all out to get Trump, there is no way to get any valid information about the so-called impeachment. But you don’t have to pay too much attention to notice that the Democrats and the presstitutes are constantly changing the focus. The alleged whistleblower, who only had hearsay information, if that, has dropped out of the picture, being too compromised by his affliations and prior meetings with Adam Schiff during which the “whistleblowing” was planned as an attack on Trump.
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/stg111419dAPR20191114034523.jpg
The Democrats and presstitutes then shifted focus to state department types who also heard second hand from “staff” about the alleged conversation containing a quid pro quo, a claim unsupported by the transcript of the telephone call or by the President of Ukraine. So now a new alleged phone call has emerged, or been invented. The acting ambassador to Ukraine, William Taylor, a sleazy State Department type, today (Nov. 13) testified that a member of his staff heard Trump in another telephone call asking Sondland about the Ukraine investigation of the Bidens. This second-hand information is described by the presstitute media as a “bombshell.” God help us. It is nothing of the sort. But the presstitutes will repeat it until it is.

https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/lb191114c20191113094628.jpg
A person has to wonder how many members of staffs are permitted to listen to telephone conversations between heads of state. In my day it was zero.
What I want to know, and what we all should want to know, is why are the Democrats serving up hearsay information? Why aren’t the staffers themselves who allegedly heard the conversations on the stand testifying? The testimony should come under oath from those who allegedly heard the conversations. Are the House Democrats going to impeach the President of the United States on second-hand hearsay information?
As for the investigation of the Bidens and their payoffs for blocking Ukraine’s investigation of the corruption in Burisma, the Ukrainian company that hired the protection of Biden, Trump doesn’t need to ask for it in exchange for $1 billion. Ukrainian officials have released the records. http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/11/ukrainian-officials-release-records-of.html (http://www.stationgossip.com/2019/11/ukrainian-officials-release-records-of.html)The presstitutes have not reported the release. Don’t expect the whores to report any true facts. They are incapable of it.
Burisma holdings paid Hunter Biden $3,166,000 for protection according to the records released by Ukraine. More importantly, the information released by Ukraine, according to the report, revealed that Burisma pressured the corrupt Obama State Department to intervene to end the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma for corruption. This is precisely what the Obama regime did. Joe Biden forced the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor by giving the President of Ukraine 6 hours to fire the prosecutor, thus ending the investigation, or forfeiting $1 billion.
We all need to ask ourselves why it is Trump who is under investigation and not Biden and Obama. We already know the reason. The American media is corrupt beyond the meaning of the word. The Democrats are the most corrupt political party on the face of the earth. And the military/security complex intends to deep-six Donald Trump for threatening their budget and power by normalizing relations with Russia.
If Trump goes down, America goes with him.

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/paul-craig-roberts-rages-latest-false-trump-impeachment-news

dannno

11-14-2019, 07:57 PM

Good to know we got some bootlickers here who will kiss up to the President no matter what he does. What happened to "government should be afraid of their people, not vice versa"?

Trump was investigating corruption of a former administration who is currently running for office. That’s his job. I would support impeaching trump if he DIDN’T attempt to investigate and covered up the corruption instead.

dannno

11-14-2019, 08:08 PM

Good to know we got some bootlickers here who will kiss up to the President no matter what he does. What happened to "government should be afraid of their people, not vice versa"?

Since you aren’t a regular here, you have probably never watched this clip. I would be curious to know your thoughts and if it has changed what you think about the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 08:11 PM

Since you aren’t a regular here, you have probably never watched this clip. I would be curious to know your thoughts and if it has changed what you think about the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY
His red bars tell me he is reading from a script and that the facts won't make any difference.

Gumba of Liberty

11-14-2019, 08:42 PM

Deepstate is your fake boogeyman to justify everything tyrants do. I thought we were a non-democracy, somehow people like you always complain about unelected power when you're on the losing end.

Fake boogeyman my ass. The CIA has overthrown 50+ governments since WWII. This is common knowledge. Only difference this time is they are doing it to the United States of America. Trump is the target of an ongoing CIA/M16 (British Empire Inc) coup. The fact that he is still standing is impressive regardless of whether you agree with his style or policies.

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 08:45 PM

Swordsmyth

11-14-2019, 11:09 PM

The House began public hearings this week, furthering the partisan move by the Democrats to impeach President Trump (https://thehill.com/people/donald-trump) in a blatant abuse of constitutional authority. Representative Adam Schiff (https://thehill.com/people/adam-schiff) said in a press conference, “These open hearings will be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves and also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president’s misconduct.”
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/lb191114c20191113094628_0.jpg
There are several problems with this statement.

First, Schiff is already characterizing the outcome of the investigation. As the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, he serves as a key arbiter of the inquiry under the resolution. As such, he is in a position that demands an unbiased irreproachable ethic in evaluating requests for subpoenas and testimony. Any judge in a similar position would be required to recuse himself with even a hint of the pure bias Schiff has displayed, including coordination with the Ukraine whistleblower and other actions.
The Democrats do not even pretend that their impeachment game is fair or actually about fact finding. This is simply about using a grant of power in the Constitution arbitrarily and politically, outside the bounds of due process and the purpose of that authority. Although the House does have the “sole power” of impeachment, that is a grant of jurisdiction, not a license to proceed on purely partisan motivation. Article One must work coordinately and not inconsistently with Article Two, which provides the legal basis upon which a sitting president may be impeached.
Second, Schiff demonstrates this is all about media play in the court of public opinion. Voters have no power or responsibility in an impeachment proceeding. The drafters of the Constitution intended the impeachment and removal process to be exercised only when there was sufficient evidence that the subject of the impeachment had committed a legally qualifying offense. This is not about whether impeachment is popular in the polls or whether a majority of Americans prefer it. Transparency in the context of this quasi judicial process is to provide fundamental fairness and due process for the president. Why are the Democrats so hellbent on blatantly refusing to allow Republican subpoenas and witnesses?
It is because it is a sham. Yet the Democrats are openly admitting that their goal is to try this in the media and attempt to dishonestly convince us that somehow we too should hate Donald Trump. They are hoping to convince us not to vote for him. That is not a legitimate or constitutional purpose of an impeachment. It is rather ironic that they claim his “crime” is an alleged quid pro quo to gain political advantage, while they are manipulating the power of impeachment for their political advantage. It is Schiff and other Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (https://thehill.com/people/nancy-pelosi) who should be impeached. There is an actual constitutional basis for that.
Third, Schiff is proving beyond doubt that this entire impeachment is merely a coordinated partisan attack against President Trump and, even more importantly, against the government of the United States. There was a bipartisan effort was against impeachment, with two Democrats and all Republicans in the House voting against the inquiry. The Democrats are abusing the power of impeachment and, if they are allowed to move forward, they are not only setting a terrible precedent that impeachment can be wielded as a political weapon that it was never intended to be, but also attacking the Constitution and undermining the rule of law.
In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained the problem of political motivation with the power of impeachment. He wrote,

“A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused.”
https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b792-20bd8d8fa069.storage.googleapis.com/s3fs-public/inline-images/bg111219dAPR20191112054535.jpg
He was right. Schiff and Pelosi are not interested in real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. Their only interest is staging a political coup against their adversaries. But this is even bigger than the president. This is an attempt to overthrow the federal government from the inside.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-impeachment-blueprint-overthrow-government-within

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:21 PM

Since you aren’t a regular here, you have probably never watched this clip. I would be curious to know your thoughts and if it has changed what you think about the situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

Throw Biden in prison for all I care. never said he was innocent or a good guy, but the possibly Biden is a criminal, doesn't make Trump's solicitation somehow legal.

Philhelm

11-22-2019, 04:25 PM

Fake boogeyman my ass. The CIA has overthrown 50+ governments since WWII. This is common knowledge. Only difference this time is they are doing it to the United States of America. Trump is the target of an ongoing CIA/M16 (British Empire Inc) coup. The fact that he is still standing is impressive regardless of whether you agree with his style or policies.

I think that the Deep State can mean a combination of things, and it's great that it's being discussed openly.

It's not just the CIA, but all of the intelligence agencies that betray and conspire against us, government entities such as the IRS that have been weaponized against political opponents, and pretty much the entire unelected bureaucracy that remains in power regardless of the will of the people.

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:26 PM

in a blatant abuse of constitutional authority.

Good God.

I wish our founders could see this.

Republicans are getting really creative about complaining about checks and balances.

From "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" to "imagination of non existent rights" and now "abuse of constitutional authority"

Funny how no Republicans are ever willing to consider their President could do anything wrong.

Here's a challenge for you, answer me this, just to see if you're serious about truth and law, or just a bootlicker who will defend the President no matter what

1. What would a President need to do to warrant impeachment, or removal?
2. If such a thing was actually done, and proven, or admitted beyond reasonable doubt, what would the actual process of impeachment and removal look like? (and why can't I cry "coup" by then?)
3. If we held previous Presidents to the same standards as Trump is now, which President got away with impeachable offenses?

I dare you to tell me :) I'll wait for your ass kissing.

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:28 PM

I think that the Deep State can mean a combination of things, and it's great that it's being discussed openly.

It costs nothing to make up a boogey man that doesn't exist. Scapegoating is cheap.

It's not just the CIA, but all of the intelligence agencies that betray and conspire against us, government entities such as the IRS that have been weaponized against political opponents, and pretty much the entire unelected bureaucracy that remains in power regardless of the will of the people.

Therefore the solution is what? Direct democracy? A coup against the deep state?

Philhelm

11-22-2019, 04:31 PM

Good God.

I wish our founders could see this.

Republicans are getting really creative about complaining about checks and balances.

From "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench" to "imagination of non existent rights" and now "abuse of constitutional authority"

Funny how no Republicans are ever willing to consider their President could do anything wrong.

Here's a challenge for you, answer me this, just to see if you're serious about truth and law, or just a bootlicker who will defend the President no matter what

1. What would a President need to do to warrant impeachment, or removal?
2. If such a thing was actually done, and proven, or admitted beyond reasonable doubt, what would the actual process of impeachment and removal look like? (and why can't I cry "coup" by then?)
3. If we held previous Presidents to the same standards as Trump is now, which President got away with impeachable offenses?

I dare you to tell me :) I'll wait for your ass kissing.

1. High crimes and misdemeanors.
2. I would expect an investigation of a crime, not a person.
3. Most of them? Obama can drone strike U.S. citizens without trial and nobody gives a shit.

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:31 PM

Fake boogeyman my ass. The CIA has overthrown 50+ governments since WWII. This is common knowledge. Only difference this time is they are doing it to the United States of America. Trump is the target of an ongoing CIA/M16 (British Empire Inc) coup. The fact that he is still standing is impressive regardless of whether you agree with his style or policies.

Real coups use violence, not legal processes. To call our constitutional process a coup is to actually undermine our law. THAT is the real danger and coup. Holding our elected people accountable according to the law, in open, by other elected representatives, is the opposite of abuse of power. It's the simplest, easiest, most legal, most peaceful way to discuss our President's actions.

It's laughable how nervous Trumpbots are getting over this. This started as "Democrats have nothing so this will all backfire and help Trump win 2020" to now "This is so scary they're going to find him guuilty no matter what and it's a coup! we need to stall!"

Nunes is the worst liar.

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:32 PM

1. High crimes and misdemeanors.
2. I would expect an investigation of a crime, not a person.
3. Most of them? Obama can drone strike U.S. citizens without trial and nobody gives a $#@!.

1. be specific. Go ahead, give me an example.

2. investigation by whom? how? what's to stop you from calling it a coup again?

3. most of our Presidents deserve to be impeached but this is a coup?

Philhelm

11-22-2019, 04:37 PM

It costs nothing to make up a boogey man that doesn't exist. Scapegoating is cheap.

Unelected, long-standing government entities that have operated in violation of our Bill of Rights do exist, in plain sight, so they're not exactly boogeymen. To me, these entities, even the seemingly innocuous ones, are every bit a part of the "Deep State" as the CIA.

Therefore the solution is what? Direct democracy? A coup against the deep state?

Ron Paul has long suggested abolishing certain government agencies, such as the IRS, Department of Education, etc. What other solution would you expect on the Ron Paul forum?

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:43 PM

Ron Paul has long suggested abolishing certain government agencies, such as the IRS, Department of Education, etc. What other solution would you expect on the Ron Paul forum?

Ron's suggestion of abolishing unnecessary government is at best being fiscally responsible and reducing waste, that does jack shit to get rid of shadow government or unelected officials that are holding elected ones accountable.

"Unelected, long-standing government entities that have operated in violation of our Bill of Rights do exist, in plain sight, so they're not exactly boogeymen. To me, these entities, even the seemingly innocuous ones, are every bit a part of the "Deep State" as the CIA."

Sounds like you just move the goal post and make up shit as we go along.

Philhelm

11-22-2019, 04:44 PM

1. be specific. Go ahead, give me an example.

2. investigation by whom? how? what's to stop you from calling it a coup again?

3. most of our Presidents deserve to be impeached but this is a coup?

1. Specific Example: Extrajudicial assassination of two U.S. citizens via drone strike.
2. Crimes are meant to be investigated, not people. I cannot take the current impeachment proceeding in a vacuum without also considering the entire Mueller "investigation." The result? That Mueller did not "exonerate" Trump even though it is absolutely not the role of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone. Whether Trump be one thing or another is irrelevant; if they can get away with railroading the elected President of the United States of America, they can do much, much worse to the rest of us.
3. I would state that it is a soft coup since there were operators conspiring within government seeking to oust Trump before the motherfucker was even inaugurated.

Actually, I kind of regret responding, because from your questions you come across as a ding dong. We're on the Ron Paul forum and your suggestion is that to counter unelected government we might change to a direct democracy (lol) or stage a coup against the deep state. Are you retarded?

PRB

11-22-2019, 04:52 PM

1. Specific Example: Extrajudicial assassination of two U.S. citizens via drone strike.

not possible. The President is the law, so what he does is judicial by definition. Try again. What part of "shoot somebody on 5th Avenue" didn't you get?

2. Crimes are meant to be investigated, not people.

How do you investigate a crime without the criminal? Sounds like either semantics or a farce.

I cannot take the current impeachment proceeding in a vacuum without also considering the entire Mueller "investigation."

Why?

The result? That Mueller did not "exonerate" Trump even though it is absolutely not the role of a prosecutor to exonerate anyone.

Yeah, who asked you?

Whether Trump be one thing or another is irrelevant; if they can get away with railroading the elected President of the United States of America, they can do much, much worse to the rest of us.

Who is they and what exactly is railroading?

3. I would state that it is a soft coup since there were operators conspiring within government seeking to oust Trump before the motherfucker was even inaugurated.

none of which you can prove have anything to do with either Mueller or Ukraine.

Actually, I kind of regret responding, because from your questions you come across as a ding dong.

Bootlickers love their ad hominems

We're on the Ron Paul forum and your suggestion is that to counter unelected government we might change to a direct democracy (lol) or stage a coup against the deep state. Are you retarded?

Nope. You are.

Swordsmyth

11-22-2019, 04:54 PM

Actually, I kind of regret responding
I agree, don't feed the troll.

His fallacies are obvious enough that they don't need a response.

PRB

11-22-2019, 05:01 PM

I agree, don't feed the troll.

His fallacies are obvious enough that they don't need a response.

Every bootlicker has an excuse to evade the questions. Keep defending our tyrant. don't cry when one day people like me can't save you.

PRB

11-22-2019, 06:20 PM

[]

pcosmar

11-22-2019, 06:25 PM

I'm waiting for a Trump Pedo Tape to emerge,,and watch all these Ttards Heads to explode.

jmdrake

11-22-2019, 06:36 PM

Real coups use violence, not legal processes. To call our constitutional process a coup is to actually undermine our law. THAT is the real danger and coup. Holding our elected people accountable according to the law, in open, by other elected representatives, is the opposite of abuse of power. It's the simplest, easiest, most legal, most peaceful way to discuss our President's actions.

It's laughable how nervous Trumpbots are getting over this. This started as "Democrats have nothing so this will all backfire and help Trump win 2020" to now "This is so scary they're going to find him guuilty no matter what and it's a coup! we need to stall!"

Nunes is the worst liar.

For the record, "Trumpbots" are not the only ones who find these impeachment hearings a farce. Here is a leftwing Bernie Sanders supporter ripping them apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvE8Zb5fSk

I am 100% certain that Trump will not be found guilty. The numbers just aren't there. And the evidence isn't strong enough to push the numbers there. That said, I agree with your assessment that the impeachment itself isn't a coup, but the Russiagate investigation and how it started was a coup though a non violent one. There are such things as "bloodless coups." FBI agents tweeting each other about "insurance" to overturn the election if Trump won was not part of the "constitutional process." That said, we are where we are.

PRB

11-22-2019, 06:42 PM

I'm waiting for a Trump Pedo Tape to emerge,,and watch all these Ttards Heads to explode.

Damn, and I thought I was the troll.

PRB

11-22-2019, 06:43 PM

For the record, "Trumpbots" are not the only ones who find these impeachment hearings a farce. Here is a leftwing Bernie Sanders supporter ripping them apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvE8Zb5fSk

I am 100% certain that Trump will not be found guilty. The numbers just aren't there. And the evidence isn't strong enough to push the numbers there. That said, I agree with your assessment that the impeachment itself isn't a coup, but the Russiagate investigation and how it started was a coup though a non violent one. There are such things as "bloodless coups." FBI agents tweeting each other about "insurance" to overturn the election if Trump won was not part of the "constitutional process." That said, we are where we are.

I agree, he won't be found guilty. Whether he is is another question, but he won't be found guilty.

How was Russiagate a coup?

Kyle's a funny guy, but Sondland isn't the only person who says there was quid pro quo.

Also, if aid wasn't help up for that reason, what was it held up for?

Are we just going to repeat the republican lie that because it was eventually released, it wasn't actually held up?

jmdrake

11-22-2019, 06:56 PM

I agree, he won't be found guilty. Whether he is is another question, but he won't be found guilty.

How was Russiagate a coup?

You said it yourself. A coup is something that goes outside constitutional means. Two FBI agents texting each other about "insurance" if Trump happens to become president is unconstitutional on its face. And there is evidence coming out that FBI agents falsified documents to get the investigation started.

Kyle's a funny guy, but Sondland isn't the only person who says there was quid pro quo.

I'm sure you've said it. Donald Duck may have said it too. And? So?

Also, if aid wasn't help up for that reason, what was it held up for?

Are we just going to repeat the republican lie that because it was eventually released, it wasn't actually held up?

It was released without there being an investigation. So you have a quid but no pro quo. On the flip side, Joe Biden got a pro quo for his quid.

PRB

11-22-2019, 07:06 PM

You said it yourself. A coup is something that goes outside constitutional means. Two FBI agents texting each other about "insurance" if Trump happens to become president is unconstitutional on its face.

Strzok and Page were not how Russiagate started, and the investigations hardly depended on them. Mueller fired them immediately when he found out about their texts.

And there is evidence coming out that FBI agents falsified documents to get the investigation started.

What evidence?

I'm sure you've said it. Donald Duck may have said it too. And? So?

Got it, we'll just ignore anybody who don't want to listen to. That's your opinion in a nutshell, screw testimonies, because who cares who said anything.

It was released without there being an investigation. So you have a quid but no pro quo.

Wait. There was a quid? Meaning there was an attempt?

On the flip side, Joe Biden got a pro quo for his quid.

never said he was innocent, throw him in prison for all I care.

enhanced_deficit

11-22-2019, 07:11 PM

https://www.juancole.com/images/2019/09/trumpNetanyahu.jpg
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541368-Simultanous-Coup-Attempts-against-a-Globalist-Neoconservative-funded-Trump-amp-Netanyahu&p=6888106&viewfull=1#post6888106)

Simultanous Coup Attempts against a Globalist Neoconservative funded Trump & Netanyahu (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541368-Simultanous-Coup-Attempts-against-a-Globalist-Neoconservative-funded-Trump-amp-Netanyahu&)

Who is behind simultanous Coup attempts taking place currently against two rising stars of cause of liberty , Trump and Netanyhu, funded by same Globalist Neoconservative, the widely respected Sheldon Adelson?

Have some so called 'America-First' factions of Deep State turned against 'Deep Zionism' funded politicians?

Or timing just coincidence and no connection between the two simultanoues coup attempts?

PRB

11-22-2019, 07:59 PM

jmdrake

11-22-2019, 08:15 PM

Strzok and Page were not how Russiagate started, and the investigations hardly depended on them. Mueller fired them immediately when he found out about their texts.

The Steele dossier is how it got started. That doesn't make it any better. They were certainly part of the machinery though. And Mueller firing them after they helped get the ball rolling doesn't help your argument in the least.

What evidence?

https://www.vox.com/2019/11/22/20977630/inspector-general-report-carter-page-russia-investigation
An inspector general reportedly finds that FBI employee altered a document in Russia investigation

Got it, we'll just ignore anybody who don't want to listen to. That's your opinion in a nutshell, screw testimonies, because who cares who said anything.

I don't have you on ignore. Maybe I should? And for the record, Mr. Troll, I'm one of the most anti-Trump people on this forum. But I still call BS when I see it. Just because people say "Quid pro quo" without evidence doesn't prove quid pro quo.

Wait. There was a quid? Meaning there was an attempt?

Are you as stupid as you are pretending to be? I hope not. "Quid" doesn't mean "attempt." Quid pro quo means something given for something else. There was something given, aid. There is no evidence that it was given for anything. Certainly it didn't result in anything being received.

never said he was innocent, throw him in prison for all I care.

If he's not innocent....then there should be an investigation of what he did in Ukraine. If there should be an investigation of what he did in Ukraine, then the Ukrainian government should help in that investigation. If the Ukrainian government should help in that investigation....

Zippyjuan

11-22-2019, 08:21 PM

The Steele dossier is how it got started. That doesn't make it any better. They were certainly part of the machinery though. And Mueller firing them after they helped get the ball rolling doesn't help your argument in the least.

The Steel Dossier actually originated with a conservative group.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/586040491/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-russia-investigations-the-dossier

Where'd it come from?

During the 2016 Republican presidential primaries, the leaders of the conservative news outlet Washington Free Beacon hired a private intelligence company, Fusion GPS, to conduct research into the candidates, including Trump. Early in the year, the Free Beacon's interest in the work lapsed.

So by "early March," Fusion GPS approached the law firm Perkins Coie, which represents the Democratic National Committee, offering to continue its investigations into Trump. In April, the law firm agreed, and it began to underwrite the investigation.

Why is this important? After Fusion GPS was initially hired by conservatives, Democrats paid for the phase of the work that included the compilation of the dossier.

parocks

11-22-2019, 09:37 PM

The Electoral College kept a tyrant Hillary out of office which is what it was supposed to do.

It's the United STATES. The STATES play an important role in the selection of the President.

parocks

11-22-2019, 09:48 PM

I think that the Deep State can mean a combination of things, and it's great that it's being discussed openly.

It's not just the CIA, but all of the intelligence agencies that betray and conspire against us, government entities such as the IRS that have been weaponized against political opponents, and pretty much the entire unelected bureaucracy that remains in power regardless of the will of the people.

Abolish the CIA, just shut it down. Is there anyone here who doesn't want to shut down the CIA?

PRB

11-23-2019, 03:59 PM

The Steele dossier is how it got started. That doesn't make it any better. They were certainly part of the machinery though. And Mueller firing them after they helped get the ball rolling doesn't help your argument in the least. https://www.vox.com/2019/11/22/20977630/inspector-general-report-carter-page-russia-investigation An inspector general reportedly finds that FBI employee altered a document in Russia investigation I don't have you on ignore. Maybe I should? And for the record, Mr. Troll, I'm one of the most anti-Trump people on this forum. But I still call BS when I see it. Just because people say "Quid pro quo" without evidence doesn't prove quid pro quo. Are you as stupid as you are pretending to be? I hope not. "Quid" doesn't mean "attempt." Quid pro quo means something given for something else. There was something given, aid. There is no evidence that it was given for anything. Certainly it didn't result in anything being received. If he's not innocent....then there should be an investigation of what he did in Ukraine. If there should be an investigation of what he did in Ukraine, then the Ukrainian government should help in that investigation. If the Ukrainian government should help in that investigation.... Aid doesn't count as giving something, because it wasn't his to give, it was a decision Congress had already made. If anything Trump made it his problem by withholding, so yes, he made it a quid. He did it with the intention of getting something only personally favorable. If Biden isn't innocent and he should be investigated and prosecuted (and he should), Trump wouldnt need to backchannel with Guiliani. The fact he used his private people to go through private alternative pathways is proof he himself knew he had something to hide. Sondland and Taylor both claim Trump wanted Zelensky to make a public statement about Bidens, this was a publicity stunt purely intended to smear Biden, rather than investigate.

jmdrake

11-23-2019, 04:03 PM

Aid doesn't count as giving something, because it wasn't his to give, it was a decision Congress had already made.

True. But presidents and vice presidents can hold up delivery of said aid. Just ask Joe Biden.

jmdrake

11-23-2019, 04:06 PM

The Steel Dossier actually originated with a conservative group.

https://www.npr.org/2018/04/25/586040491/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-russia-investigations-the-dossier

Half truths are the best lies.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/fbi-releases-documents-showing-payments-trump-dossier-author-steele-n897506
Fusion had been hired to get information on Trump during the primaries by a Republican media firm, Washington Free Beacon. When Trump became the Republican nominee, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party began picking up the tab for the Fusion research. Fusion owner Glenn Simpson hired Steele, a Russia expert, to gather information from his sources in Russia.

PRB

11-23-2019, 04:22 PM

True. But presidents and vice presidents can hold up delivery of said aid. Just ask Joe Biden. and Joe Biden should be arrested an in prison for that alone, what's your question? I really wish you had more to say after I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that Biden can and should be locked up. Literally nobody here is defending Biden, you're the one defending Trump.

jmdrake

11-23-2019, 04:30 PM

and Joe Biden should be arrested an in prison for that alone, what's your question? I really wish you had more to say after I've said MULTIPLE TIMES that Biden can and should be locked up. Literally nobody here is defending Biden, you're the one defending Trump.

:rolleyes: The fact, that you are ignoring, is that even though congress allocates money, they lack the power to force the executive to actually spend it. It's called separation of powers. Research that before you respond again okay?

Add to that the fact that congress put into the aid law that the president has a duty to ensure a government is not corrupt before sending it aid. So both Joe Biden and Donald Trump can stand behind the "I was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine" shield.

PRB

11-23-2019, 08:25 PM

:rolleyes: The fact, that you are ignoring, is that even though congress allocates money, they lack the power to force the executive to actually spend it. It's called separation of powers. Research that before you respond again okay? Add to that the fact that congress put into the aid law that the president has a duty to ensure a government is not corrupt before sending it aid. So both Joe Biden and Donald Trump can stand behind the "I was ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine" shield. Nope. First of all, prosecute the F out of Biden. Please, go ahead, stop making him your "he did it too" defense. He's guilty. Next : As Schiff said, ensuring there was no corruption in Ukraine, especially during Biden's time, was not a personal position but a consensus, so yes, he had some shield. By contrast, Trump had zero reason to think the current Ukrainian government or President was corrupt, or if it was, what it had to do with Biden. See the difference here? Trump wasn't avoiding corruption of Ukraine, he was personally interested in Biden. If anything ,Trump was ADDING TO the corruption.

Swordsmyth

11-23-2019, 08:43 PM

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-17-at-5.28.01-PM.png?resize=600%2C600&ssl=1

jmdrake

11-23-2019, 10:08 PM

Nope. First of all, prosecute the F out of Biden.

It's not a "me too defense" dumbass! The fact is that the president, by both constitutional right and by the law that congress passed, has the right to withhold foreign aid!

PRB

11-24-2019, 02:39 AM

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-17-at-5.28.01-PM.png?resize=600%2C600&ssl=1

I don't want to elect Biden, I want to imprison him. try harder

PRB

11-24-2019, 02:40 AM

It's not a "me too defense" dumbass! The fact is that the president, by both constitutional right and by the law that congress passed, has the right to withhold foreign aid!

Biden isn't a President, so he should be in prison.

jmdrake

11-24-2019, 03:41 AM

Biden isn't a President, so he should be in prison.

He was vice president when he did it and carrying out the official policy of the president. I agree that he should be in prison. My disagreement is your point that a president can't delay distribution of foreign aid that congress has allocated. He most certainly can.

PRB

11-24-2019, 02:37 PM

He was vice president when he did it and carrying out the official policy of the president. I agree that he should be in prison. My disagreement is your point that a president can't delay distribution of foreign aid that congress has allocated. He most certainly can.

what about this part "By contrast, Trump had zero reason to think the current Ukrainian government or President was corrupt, or if it was, what it had to do with Biden. See the difference here? Trump wasn't avoiding corruption of Ukraine, he was personally interested in Biden. If anything ,Trump was ADDING TO the corruption."

also, even if there was no QPP, Trump DID still ask for a personal favor. Either you believe he didn't ask or what he asked wasn't personal.

jmdrake

11-24-2019, 04:24 PM

what about this part "[COLOR=#333333]By contrast, Trump had zero reason to think the current Ukrainian government or President was corrupt

How can you say that and still say that Joe Biden should be arrested? :confused:

juleswin

11-24-2019, 04:28 PM

He was vice president when he did it and carrying out the official policy of the president. I agree that he should be in prison. My disagreement is your point that a president can't delay distribution of foreign aid that congress has allocated. He most certainly can.

Exactly and they do it all the time, so what if he wanted a certain potential corruption case to be investigated before he gave out the money? That video Judge Nap posted made me not care about it all when he said the whole impeachment process is a political one.

PRB

11-25-2019, 01:21 AM

How can you say that and still say that Joe Biden should be arrested? :confused:

1. I don't care about Biden, I want him to be in prison just so you can't keep bringing him up as a defense
2. Why can't I? Biden isn't Ukranian, not the President, not the prosecutor, not any government official there.

jmdrake

11-25-2019, 06:40 AM

1. I don't care about Biden, I want him to be in prison just so you can't keep bringing him up as a defense
2. Why can't I? Biden isn't Ukranian, not the President, not the prosecutor, not any government official there.

Your logic circuits are broken. If Biden was able to get the president of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in order to receive aid, that in itself is a sign of corruption on the part of the president of Ukraine.

Edit: And you can't use the excuse that Ukraine "really really needed the money." Parents in desperately poor countries who sell their children to tourists for sex are still corrupt no matter how badly they needed the money.

phill4paul

11-25-2019, 06:47 AM

Philhelm

11-25-2019, 09:31 AM

For the record, "Trumpbots" are not the only ones who find these impeachment hearings a farce. Here is a leftwing Bernie Sanders supporter ripping them apart.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvE8Zb5fSk

I am 100% certain that Trump will not be found guilty. The numbers just aren't there. And the evidence isn't strong enough to push the numbers there. That said, I agree with your assessment that the impeachment itself isn't a coup, but the Russiagate investigation and how it started was a coup though a non violent one. There are such things as "bloodless coups." FBI agents tweeting each other about "insurance" to overturn the election if Trump won was not part of the "constitutional process." That said, we are where we are.

I consider the impeachment hearings to be part of the coup (although I agree with your assessment about Russiagate being a more definitive example), since the impeachment attempt is in conjunction with every other scheme against Trump, so I do not analyze it in a vacuum based upon its own merits.

While impeachment is a Constitutional method of opposing a President, I do not consider this impeachment to be acted upon in good faith, which is why I can include it as part of the multi-faceted, soft coup attempt.

Sonny Tufts

11-25-2019, 11:04 AM

To date there has been no visible comment from U.S. military sanctioning Lt. Col. Vindman for his decision; or correcting the impression represented by Vindman’s military appearance.

Maybe it's because he was subpoenaed. Military personnel don't usually disobey congressional subpoenas, unlike those in the White House.

And what "impression" was being represented? His uniform is authorized for year-round wear, and military personnel testifying before Congress often, if not usually, appear in uniform.

PRB

11-25-2019, 06:23 PM

Your logic circuits are broken. If Biden was able to get the president of Ukraine to fire a prosecutor in order to receive aid, that in itself is a sign of corruption on the part of the president of Ukraine.

Not Zelensky.

But if you're going to say Zelensky is corrupt, it makes zero sense to trust him to help you to investigate.

PRB

11-25-2019, 06:24 PM

Maybe it's because he was subpoenaed. Military personnel don't usually disobey congressional subpoenas, unlike those in the White House.

And what "impression" was being represented? His uniform is authorized for year-round wear, and military personnel testifying before Congress often, if not usually, appear in uniform.

why should there be any sanctions? he was still military the moment he was testifying.

PRB

11-25-2019, 06:25 PM

I consider the impeachment hearings to be part of the coup (although I agree with your assessment about Russiagate being a more definitive example), since the impeachment attempt is in conjunction with every other scheme against Trump, so I do not analyze it in a vacuum based upon its own merits.

While impeachment is a Constitutional method of opposing a President, I do not consider this impeachment to be acted upon in good faith, which is why I can include it as part of the multi-faceted, soft coup attempt.

what would he need to do to have committed a crime worthy of removal?

PRB

11-28-2019, 09:40 AM

good news : Trump throws Guiliani under the bus and Nunes is so desperate to save his face that he's suing CNN & Daily Beast.

Looks like all the President's men are getting in trouble.

What's more likely, that the President is full of crappy associates? Or the deep state is so good at throwing innocent people in prison?

jmdrake

12-06-2019, 02:42 PM

Not Zelensky.

But if you're going to say Zelensky is corrupt, it makes zero sense to trust him to help you to investigate.

Zelensky was being asked to investigate a corrupt matter that happened before his watch. So it makes 100% sense to ask him to help with the investigation.

enhanced_deficit

12-06-2019, 02:56 PM

https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/11/Screen-Shot-2019-11-17-at-5.28.01-PM.png?resize=600%2C600&ssl=1

Could it be that Deep Neocons are actually tricking Deep State/Dems?

"IT'S A TRAP" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541701-quot-IT-S-A-TRAP-quot&)

Swordsmyth

12-07-2019, 12:33 AM

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1196540217131438091.html

PRB

12-07-2019, 04:42 PM

Zelensky was being asked to investigate a corrupt matter that happened before his watch. So it makes 100% sense to ask him to help with the investigation.

What corrupt matter?

jmdrake

12-07-2019, 04:43 PM

What corrupt matter?

You earlier admitted that you were okay with Joe Biden going to prison. So you've already admitted what Joe Biden did was corrupt. Next.

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:12 PM

You earlier admitted that you were okay with Joe Biden going to prison. So you've already admitted what Joe Biden did was corrupt. Next.

My bad, yes, Biden is corrupt, and criminal, and should be in prison. But that's not what Trump asked. Trump asked for a public announcement for investigating Biden, which had nothing to do with the guilt of Biden (I said Biden is guilty because I don't give a F--- about the law when it comes to Democrats, but President Trump who is a Republican and cares about corruption doesn't get to have this luxury).

See the difference? I'm willing to throw Biden in prison because I'm a fascist who hates Democrats, Trump is a President who has to follow the law. So he gets impeached for it.

I'm willing to put any Democrats in prison because I feel like, it, but I hold my President to the rule of law, and if you don't like my double standard, take it up with Congress :)

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:17 PM

Could it be that Deep Neocons are actually tricking Deep State/Dems?

"IT'S A TRAP" (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?541701-quot-IT-S-A-TRAP-quot&)

Imagine having no grasp of reality that you need to keep making up conspiracy theories, rather than just accept that our President did something wrong, possibly illegal.

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:18 PM

I consider the impeachment hearings to be part of the coup (although I agree with your assessment about Russiagate being a more definitive example), since the impeachment attempt is in conjunction with every other scheme against Trump, so I do not analyze it in a vacuum based upon its own merits.

While impeachment is a Constitutional method of opposing a President, I do not consider this impeachment to be acted upon in good faith, which is why I can include it as part of the multi-faceted, soft coup attempt.

Nothing our President done or said in the past 3 years has been in good faith, so go cry me a river if you think he's been unfairly bullied.

Swordsmyth

12-08-2019, 08:21 PM

My bad, yes, Biden is corrupt, and criminal, and should be in prison. But that's not what Trump asked. Trump asked for a public announcement for investigating Biden, which had nothing to do with the guilt of Biden (I said Biden is guilty because I don't give a F--- about the law when it comes to Democrats, but President Trump who is a Republican and cares about corruption doesn't get to have this luxury).

See the difference? I'm willing to throw Biden in prison because I'm a fascist who hates Democrats, Trump is a President who has to follow the law. So he gets impeached for it.

I'm willing to put any Democrats in prison because I feel like, it, but I hold my President to the rule of law, and if you don't like my double standard, take it up with Congress :)
Trump asked for an investigation which was warranted and not a crime.

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:27 PM

Trump asked for an investigation which was warranted and not a crime.

no, he didn't. he asked for an announcement.

Swordsmyth

12-08-2019, 08:33 PM

no, he didn't. he asked for an announcement.
WRONG

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:42 PM

WRONG

so Taylor is lying?

Swordsmyth

12-08-2019, 08:45 PM

so Taylor is lying?
Yes.

PRB

12-08-2019, 08:50 PM

Yes.

who else is lying other than the President?

PRB

12-13-2019, 04:57 PM

by the way, Kyle Kulinski's opposition to impeachment is purely strategical and PR, he acknowledges all the facts about what happened (so do most Republicans)

This is why Republicans have no defense, they cry about the process, the speed, the hearings being too private or too public, complain that Trump can't defend himself but Trump himself refuses to defend himself on record.

The only kangaroo court is Trump's twitter account, coward afraid to speak under oath.

Swordsmyth

12-14-2019, 12:53 AM

Vice President Mike Pence (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/01/impeachment-inquiry-how-much-did-mike-pence-know-ukraine-concerns/4307439002/)is among the top officials culpable in President Donald Trump’s efforts to bend U.S. foreign policy for personal gain, according to a report released Tuesday (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/03/house-democrats-conclude-trump-solicited-foreign-interference/2591967001/) from House Democrats investigating the potential impeachment of Trump.Pence and other senior officials “were either knowledgeable of or active participants in an effort to extract from a foreign nation the personal political benefits sought by the president,” according to the 300-page report (https://intelligence.house.gov/uploadedfiles/20191203_-_full_report___hpsci_impeachment_inquiry_-_20191203.pdf)prepared by three House committees and based on weeks of public and private testimony from officials.
The report also faults Pence for not producing “a single document” requested by the panels and for blocking release of part of a transcript of his Sept. 18 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
Republicans on the investigating committees say the evidence doesn’t support Democrats’ conclusions, including those about Pence.

More at: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/03/democrats-impeachment-report-vice-president-mike-pence-loop/2601424001/

There it is, this is a coup designed to give us "President Pelosi".

SimmerDown

12-14-2019, 01:17 AM

no, he didn't. he asked for an announcement.
Read the transcript here (it's really quite short):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

I see nothing about an "announcement"

Here's the paragraph with Trump's ask:

"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

And here's the bit about Biden:

"...The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

PRB

12-14-2019, 02:56 AM

Read the transcript here (it's really quite short):

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html

I see nothing about an "announcement"

Here's the paragraph with Trump's ask:

"The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible."

And here's the bit about Biden:

"...The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."

I never said it was on this call.

PRB

12-14-2019, 02:58 AM

SimmerDown

12-14-2019, 06:33 AM

I never said it was on this call.
Oh, so now you're moving the goalposts, eh?

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

PRB

12-14-2019, 05:36 PM

Oh, so now you're moving the goalposts, eh?

You sir, are no lover of liberty.

Nobody claimed the call was sufficient evidence.

dannno

12-14-2019, 06:27 PM

Not Zelensky.

But if you're going to say Zelensky is corrupt, it makes zero sense to trust him to help you to investigate.

The old President of Ukraine was corrupt. Zelenksky is the new guy.

dannno

12-14-2019, 06:29 PM

Nobody claimed the call was sufficient evidence.

Ya, there is zero evidence anywhere.

There was one guy who was "under the impression" it was a quid pro quos, who heard it from his friend's brother's girlfriend's sister who heard it from her friend's uncle's cousin at the mall.

PRB

12-15-2019, 03:07 AM

Ya, there is zero evidence anywhere.

There was one guy who was "under the impression" it was a quid pro quos, who heard it from his friend's brother's girlfriend's sister who heard it from her friend's uncle's cousin at the mall.

Bill Taylor's testimony was evidence

jmdrake

12-20-2019, 07:57 AM

My bad, yes, Biden is corrupt, and criminal, and should be in prison. But that's not what Trump asked. Trump asked for a public announcement for investigating Biden, which had nothing to do with the guilt of Biden

That's not on the phone call. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Sondland testified to that "fact" then admitted it was hearsay. But let's say Trump did that for the sake of argument. What you have with respect to the Ukraine is a story by Politico in 2017 saying that Ukraine meddled in the election to boost Hillary.

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/ukraine-sabotage-trump-backfire-233446

Then you have Politico in 2019 saying the exact opposite.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/08/ukraine-interfere-elections-testimony-068095

In 2018, long before Trump's infamous phone call, a Ukranian court ruled that the release of the Manifort documents DID interfere with the 2016 elections and did so to help Hillary.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-court-ruling-election-interference/29652728.html

So...what are the rules of the game? Democrats turn a blind eye to 2016 Ukrainian meddling and even call it a "debunked conspiracy theory" and yet impeached Trump based on hearsay evidence of election interference.

jmdrake

12-20-2019, 07:57 AM

Nobody claimed the call was sufficient evidence.

Nancy Pelosi did.

PRB

12-22-2019, 09:56 PM

Nancy Pelosi did.

No she didn't.

jmdrake

12-22-2019, 10:02 PM

No she didn't.

You're full of shyt. Not only did Pelosi claim the phone call was enough, but she said that Trump asking China to investigate the Bidens was a "confession of his violation." In other words, just asking a foreign country to investigate someone that Pelosi thinks is above the law (any democrat running for president, no matter what crime they may have committed) is an impeachable offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXbyhJlVmbA

Also former senator Robert Kerry argued for impeachment without even an investigation.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-7538613/Former-Sen-Bob-Kerrey-calls-Democrats-Republicans-end-investigation.html

PRB

12-22-2019, 10:09 PM

You're full of shyt. Not only did Pelosi claim the phone call was enough
she didn't say that. try again, providing actual evidence, thanks.

jmdrake

12-22-2019, 10:15 PM

she didn't say that. try again, providing actual evidence, thanks.

Yes she did. You're just too dishonest to admit it. The phone call was him asking Ukraine for investigation of the Bidens. And she claimed that him asking China for investigation of the Bidens was by admission of a violation worthy of impeachment. But hey, I know your thing is to lie to support the dems. So please continue.

PRB

12-22-2019, 10:21 PM

Yes she did. You're just too dishonest to admit it.

You're a liar, that's why you have not produced a single quote or video of her saying so.

jmdrake

12-22-2019, 10:29 PM

You're a liar, that's why you have not produced a single quote or video of her saying so.

The video speaks for itself. The only evidence at that point was the "whistleblower" and Trump saying "China investigate the Bidens." You're not just a liar. You're stupid as well.

PRB

12-22-2019, 10:56 PM

The video speaks for itself. The only evidence at that point was the "whistleblower" and Trump saying "China investigate the Bidens." You're not just a liar. You're stupid as well.

you just admitted that that wasn't the phone call alone.

You're the liar now :)

If you had said Pelosi found him guilty without an investigation, I might've agreed with you. But you claim Pelosi said the phone call was sufficient, which she never did.

jmdrake

12-23-2019, 07:22 AM

you just admitted that that wasn't the phone call alone.

You're the liar now :)

If you had said Pelosi found him guilty without an investigation, I might've agreed with you. But you claim Pelosi said the phone call was sufficient, which she never did.

Nope. Not at all. This video came before the transcript of the phone call was released. And the phone call and what Trump said regarding China investigating Biden is the same thing. But I don't expect you to have the brains to understand that.

Edit: Also I just caught you in another lie. I didn't say Pelosi said the phone call was all but that it was sufficient evidence. The evidence of the phone call is Trump telling Ukraine to investigate Biden. The "admission" that Pelosi said was enough for impeachment without an investigation was Trump telling China to investigate Biden. No honest intelligent person can said that one was sufficient but the other was not.

PRB

12-23-2019, 04:30 PM

Nope. Not at all. This video came before the transcript of the phone call was released. And the phone call and what Trump said regarding China investigating Biden is the same thing. But I don't expect you to have the brains to understand that.

2 mentions is the same as 1?

PRB

12-23-2019, 04:30 PM

I didn't say Pelosi said the phone call was all but that it was sufficient evidence.

She didn't say that either. Keep lying.

jmdrake

12-23-2019, 04:35 PM

2 mentions is the same as 1?

What do you think Pelosi thought Trump "admitted" when he called for China to investigate the Bidens?

jmdrake

12-23-2019, 04:36 PM

She didn't say that either. Keep lying.

Mr. liar, what do you think Pelosi meant when she said Trump "admitted" to the offense by asking China to investigate the Bidens?

PRB

12-23-2019, 11:40 PM

What do you think Pelosi thought Trump "admitted" when he called for China to investigate the Bidens?

exactly that, that he wanted Bidens investigated bu Ukraine, doesn't mean it was on a transcribed phone call.

also, trump admitting it, regardless of what he was admitting to, would mean it's additional evidence to whatever was available, so again, you cant prove she ever said the call was sufficient evidence

jmdrake

12-24-2019, 07:00 AM

exactly that, that he wanted Bidens investigated bu Ukraine, doesn't mean it was on a transcribed phone call.

The fact that Trump wanted an investigation on the Biden's is the evidence on the Trump phone call.

also, trump admitting it, regardless of what he was admitting to, would mean it's additional evidence to whatever was available, so again, you cant prove she ever said the call was sufficient evidence

It's not additional evidence of anything new. It's the same evidence. What is missing in Trump's "admission" in his comments to China is 1) was there a quid pro quo and 2) did he think there was real corruption with regards to the Bidens? Actually the China comment goes to "Trump felt the Bidens are really corrupt" which weakens the case for impeachment.

PRB

12-24-2019, 04:23 PM

The fact that Trump wanted an investigation on the Biden's is the evidence on the Trump phone call.

nope. his additional mentions that he wanted the investigation is additional evidence.

you're grasping at straws trying to say what Pelosi never said.

you can't admit that Pelosi NEVER EVER said the phone call was sufficient evidence of asking Ukraine to investigate Bidens, nor the phone call itself was sufficient evidence to impeach him.

Nobody has ever been asked "Is this phone call 7/25 sufficient evidence that the president broke the law" so how about you just admit nobody said that?

PRB

12-24-2019, 04:26 PM

It's not additional evidence of anything new. It's the same evidence.

It's additional, unless you're a liar

1. China isn't Ukraine
2. The phone call didn't say investigate Bidens. so asking for investigation is a new ask.
3. Unless it's an admission of something that never happened, in which case, it's still new evidence, or an admission.

What is missing in Trump's "admission" in his comments to China is 1) was there a quid pro quo and

Nobody claims quid pro quo was required to break a law or get impeached

2) did he think there was real corruption with regards to the Bidens? Actually the China comment goes to "Trump felt the Bidens are really corrupt" which weakens the case for impeachment.

what he felt is irrelevant. he can think he's a child molester for all I care, doesn't make it true or worth making public or private statements about it.

Please don't waste time responding unless you can cite Pelosi ever once claiming that the 7/25 phone call was sufficient evidence that the President asked for an investigation into Bidens (and for the record, I want the Bidens in prison, that's the difference between me and you, I'm willing to throw the Bidens in prison without a trial, you're not willing to impeach our President even with a trial)

jmdrake

12-24-2019, 07:49 PM

It's additional, unless you're a liar

I said it was not additional evidence of anything new. But I suppose I should add new and relevant because you are too stupid to understand that relevant was implied.

1. China isn't Ukraine

Not relevant.

2. The phone call didn't say investigate Bidens. so asking for investigation is a new ask.

Not relevant.

3. Unless it's an admission of something that never happened, in which case, it's still new evidence, or an admission.

Not relevant.

PRB

12-26-2019, 04:53 PM

I said it was not additional evidence of anything new. But I suppose I should add new and relevant because you are too stupid to understand that relevant was implied.

Not relevant.

Not relevant.

Not relevant.

Totally relevant : new info is new info.

She NEVER EVER claimed the phone call contained all sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime or was worth of impeachment. EVER.

Try again when you can prove she said it.

Please don't waste time responding unless you can cite Pelosi ever once claiming that the 7/25 phone call was sufficient evidence that the President asked for an investigation into Bidens (and for the record, I want the Bidens in prison, that's the difference between me and you, I'm willing to throw the Bidens in prison without a trial, you're not willing to impeach our President even with a trial)

PRB

12-28-2019, 06:51 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGUeZx_U-aM