Jump to content

ROMAD1

POTUS Impeachment Watch

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, stanpapi said:

"Maga meat grinder" lol. I liked that one.

Smart lawyers don't put the things that lisa page put into writing into writing. 

So what if smart lawyers don't do that?

Honest question.

What is the evidence that she actively undermined Trump's 2016 election bid?

Honest question.

Not liking the man, thinking he'd be a lousy president and having an affair are not prima facie evidence of undermining his candidacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not as though we should not have expected this going in, but either way, here it is. You gotta at least grudgingly admire the brazenness.

This will end up being the most consequential presidency in history, in that it will alter the way political calculations in America are made, for at least the rest of all our lives.

1 big thing: Trump monetizes impeachment

Illustration of President Trump behind his desk with a placard that reads

 

Illustration: Aïda Amer/Axios

 

Impeachment has brought out President Trump's marketing instincts: He and his campaign are trying to turn the perilous process into a fundraising and mobilization tool, Axios' Sara Fischer and Alayna Treene write.

  • Fascinating stat: Republicans have spent $6.8 million on impeachment TV ads since Oct. 1. Democrats have spent $4.7 million, per Advertising Analytics.
  • Why it matters: Democrats competing to challenge Trump in the general election are getting a preview of how he may seek to upend and monetize their arguments against him.

A campaign official tells Axios that a lot of the ideas for responses are being generated by Trump himself.

  • His nearly three years on the job have helped him become an expert in framing his own missteps to his advantage.

Merchandise: Recent additions to the Trump campaign's store include "Bull-Schiff" T-shirts demonizing House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff, and "Where's Hunter?" T-shirts mocking Joe Biden's son.

  • Sources close to Trump's campaign say the recent impeachment-focused merchandise has sold well and given the team an added bonus of additional data about Trump supporters.

Facebook: The Trump campaign has been blitzing Facebook with ads urging supporters to "sign up" to fight impeachment.

  • The Trump campaign has spent nearly $2 million on impeachment ads on Facebook since Sept. 28, according to data from Bully Pulpit Interactive.

TV: Trump will air a re-election ad on Fox News during the 2020 Super Bowl, per two sources familiar with the ad buy.

  • His campaign made a similar buy during Game 7 of the World Series.
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stanpapi said:

"purported" is the right word here. This is following no historical norm whatsoever. God bless the dumbocrats when it blows up on them. 

shoulda thought about the importance of historical norms before your guy blew a ****load of them up chief

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, pfife said:

shoulda thought about the importance of historical norms before your guy blew a ****load of them up chief

i don't think they even see the hypocrisy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pfife said:

shoulda thought about the importance of historical norms before your guy blew a ****load of them up chief

Sorry, due process is a hallmark of this country's legal system. Except, apparently, when you have no message, no decent candidate or any sort of interesting ideas. Then you don't care about due process, you just try to throw the guy out of office. That's the caveat to our legal system that we're apparently left with today. 

Oh, that and trying to get in front of the other impending ****storm about to hit democrats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Sorry, due process is a hallmark of this country's legal system. Except, apparently, when you have no message, no decent candidate or any sort of interesting ideas. Then you don't care about due process, you just try to throw the guy out of office. That's the caveat to our legal system that we're apparently left with today. 

Oh, that and trying to get in front of the other impending ****storm about to hit democrats. 

This isn't a legal proceeding, but hey keep hunting and pecking about it as if it is chief

Good lord get basic facts correct please

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

So what if smart lawyers don't do that?

Honest question.

What is the evidence that she actively undermined Trump's 2016 election bid?

Honest question.

Not liking the man, thinking he'd be a lousy president and having an affair are not prima facie evidence of undermining his candidacy.

I'd like to give you all the evidence you're looking for, but others are looking at that in far greater detail than I. 

the fact that she was communicating with an agent that had a key role (perhaps, the key role) into covering for hillary and setting up the russia nonsense is what makes it interesting to criminal investigators...or so I read. But I'll defer to the people looking at the criminal investigation that this has turned into. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Sorry, due process is a hallmark of this country's legal system. Except, apparently, when you have no message, no decent candidate or any sort of interesting ideas. Then you don't care about due process, you just try to throw the guy out of office. That's the caveat to our legal system that we're apparently left with today. 

Oh, that and trying to get in front of the other impending ****storm about to hit democrats. 

It's not a legal proceeding..... but you know that so you are just trying to mislead. It's a political matter.

Of if you don't yet know it then you are something else because it's been stated thousands of times... so you can decide what you want to be.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Sorry... you just try to throw the guy out of office...

That's because he's a corrupt scumbag MF'er that committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors which, under the CONSTITUTION of the UNITES STATES Stanislav, is grounds for impeachment.

But you already knew that, didn't you Stanislav?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, pfife said:

This isn't a legal proceeding, but hey keep hunting and pecking about it as if it is chief

Good lord get basic facts correct please

Giving someone 3 days to respond to your kangaroo court isn't a "proceeding" at all- of any kind. That is why the white house legal counsel used the term "purported" impeachment proceeding. Trump rightly told them to go pound sand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

That's because he's a corrupt scumbag MF'er that committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors which, under the CONSTITUTION of the UNITES STATES Stanislav, is grounds for impeachment.

But you already knew that, didn't you Stanislav?

You mean like bribery of a foreign leader who just came out this morning (again) saying that Trump did nothing wrong? 

The purported impeachment process is just a sham with a capital S. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

You mean like bribery of a foreign leader who just came out this morning (again) saying that Trump did nothing wrong? 

The purported impeachment process is just a sham with a capital S.

In your fevered Red Dreams Stanislav.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

In your fevered Red Dreams Stanislav.

The guy supposedly being bribed (i.e., the crime the dems have begun using because the word polled the best with their focus group) said no such thing ever occurred and the aid was in  fact released on time. 

This is just russia gate part II, yet an even flimsier story from dems this time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, stanpapi said:

The guy supposedly being bribed ...said no such thing ever occurred...

He said that because he's under duress Stanislav.

His country is in danger of being subordinated by your hero Vladimir Putin. He's going to knuckle under to Trump's ILLEGAL EXTORTION because he has no other choice... so OF COURSE he is going to say "no such thing". He also loses face in his own country, and with Russia by admitting Trump EXTORTED him... political suicide. But you're not smart enough to understand that, are you Stanislav? (Rather, you're TOO PARTISAN to recognize that, but I prefer the TRUMPTARD MORON narrative, that you are...).

Why Dems are calling it bribery when it is EXTORTION, and IMPEACHABLE, pure and simple, is beyond my ken. 

BTW: Perhaps you missed the memo Stanislav, Trump released the aid because it was deemed ILLEGAL, and it was a CYA move after he found out the whisteblower's report was going public.

This is EXTORTION and IMPEACHABLE, cut and dried case. The only thing saving his *** is your sycophantic dick-sucking Republican Senators that value power over the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. Benedict Arnold MF'ers, every single one of them.

You do know what COVER YOUR *** is, right Stanislav? Did you want me to translate all of the above so you can understand it, Stanislav?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see...Lisa sent text messages to an agent where they both expressed their disgust that the president won and they vowed that they would "change it"....messages sent to the same agent who was instrumental in covering for hillary, setting up the russian hoax, planting informants in the Trump campaign, leaking false info the MSM and then, to finish it off, having Kevin Clinesmith change FISA warrant applications so that they could be used to spy on Trump's campaign.

But yes, you're the victim, Lisa.

Come to think of it, maybe you won't experience the full extent of the law because you may have cut a deal with prosecutors to provide information useful against others. Time will tell.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I'd like to give you all the evidence you're looking for, but others are looking at that in far greater detail than I. 

Ok, when they come up with it, then we can discuss it as something that happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 84 Lives!!! said:

He said that because he's under duress Stanislav.

His country is in danger of being subordinated by your hero Vladimir Putin. He's going to knuckle under to Trump's ILLEGAL EXTORTION because he has no other choice... so OF COURSE he is going to say "no such thing". He also loses face in his own country, and with Russia by admitting Trump EXTORTED him... political suicide. But you're not smart enough to understand that, are you Stanislav? (Rather, you're TOO PARTISAN to recognize that, but I prefer the TRUMPTARD MORON narrative, that you are...).

Why Dems are calling it bribery when it is EXTORTION, and IMPEACHABLE, pure and simple, is beyond my ken. 

BTW: Perhaps you missed the memo Stanislav, Trump released the aid because it was deemed ILLEGAL, and it was a CYA move after he found out the whisteblower's report was going public.

This is EXTORTION and IMPEACHABLE, cut and dried case. The only thing saving his *** is your sycophantic dick-sucking Republican Senators that value power over the CONSTITUTION of the UNITED STATES. Benedict Arnold MF'ers, every single one of them.

You do know what COVER YOUR *** is, right Stanislav? Did you want me to translate all of the above so you can understand it, Stanislav?

Uh....we got nothing in return and they got the aid on time. Case closed, sherlock. 

That said, I can see where you'd go as crazy as you are when this is the best your side has to offer. As stated at the end of the video....I award you no points for your post, and may God have mercy on your soul. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

I'd like to give you all the evidence you're looking for, but others are looking at that in far greater detail than I. 

the fact that she was communicating with an agent that had a key role (perhaps, the key role) into covering for hillary and setting up the russia nonsense is what makes it interesting to criminal investigators...or so I read. But I'll defer to the people looking at the criminal investigation that this has turned into. 

yawn, you just ignore the multiple articles that were already published belying this whole word salad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Uh....we got nothing in return and they got the aid on time. Case closed, sherlock. 

 

They got the money after Trump got busted.  Furthermore, Trump had no legal basis or right to hold it even as long as he did, even though he delivered it after he got busted.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, pfife said:

They got the money after Trump got busted.  Furthermore, Trump had no legal basis or right to hold it even as long as he did, even though he delivered it after he got busted.

The Ukrainian president has been quoted in multiple news sources today confirming there was no quid pro quo. The aid was also delivered on time, after the OMB confirmation, as per below. But please, continue with your "purported impeachment inquiry" based on witnesses' "feelings, assumptions and opinions", chief. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

The Ukrainian president has been quoted in multiple news sources today confirming there was no quid pro quo. The aid was also delivered on time, after the OMB confirmation, as per below. But please, continue with your "purported impeachment inquiry" based on witnesses' "feelings, assumptions and opinions", chief. 

A Mark Meadows tweet? Not born yesterday, and don't believe demonstrated liars.  Informed consumerism is a very important part of capitalism, perhaps if you knew about capitalism whatsoever you'd know that basic fact.

At any rate, the funds were released after Trump got busted and literally everyone knows it.  Only fools and liars keep pissing in the wind on this.

Also, Mick Mulvaney told us on TV why the funds were withheld, and that it was a quid pro quo, and that it happens all the time, and that we need to get over it.   Needless to say, Mulvaney's explanation for the funds being withheld doesn't correspond to what Meadows said.   Oh, and Mulvaney purportedly runs OMB.

It's amazing how little fidelity to facts you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you know that if Trump is impeached by the house (even if not convicted and removed by the Senate) , he can’t be pardoned? 

There’s a nice piece of news.

If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes. He cannot pardon himself (it's dubious that a president has this self-pardoning power in any event), and he cannot be pardoned by a future president.

Even if a subsequent president wanted to pardon Trump in the interest of, say, domestic tranquility, she could not.

Newsweek story today.

”If Impeached by the House, Trump is Literally Unpardonable”

- Robert Reich

December 02, 2019

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pfife said:

A Mark Meadows tweet? Not born yesterday, and don't believe demonstrated liars.  Informed consumerism is a very important part of capitalism, perhaps if you knew about capitalism whatsoever you'd know that basic fact.

At any rate, the funds were released after Trump got busted and literally everyone knows it.  Only fools and liars keep pissing in the wind on this.

Also, Mick Mulvaney told us on TV why the funds were withheld, and that it was a quid pro quo, and that it happens all the time, and that we need to get over it.   Needless to say, Mulvaney's explanation for the funds being withheld doesn't correspond to what Meadows said.   Oh, and Mulvaney purportedly runs OMB.

It's amazing how little fidelity to facts you have.

Again, what did we get in exchange for the non-existent quid pro quo? We got nothing....because it was a non-existent quid pro quo. Did Ukraine get their aid on time? Yep. You see, if you want to prove a quid pro quo or bribery (based on the fact that that term plays well with your focus group), the other party to said "bribery" has to actually know they are being bribed or "quoed". Without that, you have no case, other than a political hit job completely bereft of evidence. The other side has reiterated multiple times that this did not occur. As such, this will be the first "purported impeachment inquiry" based entirely on feelings, opinions and assumptions. We should print t-shirts.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Again, what did we get in exchange for the non-existent quid pro quo? We got nothing....because it was a non-existent quid pro quo. Did Ukraine get their aid on time? Yep. You see, if you want to prove a quid pro quo or bribery (based on the fact that that term plays well with your focus group), the other party to said "bribery" has to actually know they are being bribed or "quoed". Without that, you have no case, other than a political hit job completely bereft of evidence. The other side has reiterated multiple times that this did not occur. As such, this will be the first "purported impeachment inquiry" based entirely on feelings, opinions and assumptions. We should print t-shirts.... 

 

Trump nothing because Trump got busted mid plan.   That's the third time I've said it and the third time you ignored it.   You said "we", but that's a joke, "we" weren't getting anything, "Trump" was getting what trump wanted.  

The components of a crime are mens rea and actus reus.   Neither of those are related to the victim knowing they were a victim.  In fact, neither of them are even relevant to a victim whatsoever.  Please don't act like that's not true, because it is.   learn.

Crimes happen to people who don't know they're victims all the time, and that doesn't mean it wasn't a crime.   Does a murder victim know they're a murder victim?  If someone swindles someone, and the victim never knows, is that a crime?  Of course it is.

And, finally, you've only said they're saying they weren't bribed.  You're distinctly not saying they weren't bribed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

We got nothing....because...

...it became public before Ukraine could announce the investigation during a CNN interview, and so the whole thing was called off and the funds were released.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...