Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

The Impeachment Thread


No Excuses

Impeachment  

198 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Donald Trump be impeached for obstruction of justice?



Recommended Posts

One of the things that's clear from that transcript is that Zelensky was well briefing and coached by his people on how to interact with Trump - the flattery almost to the point of obsequiousness, and using some of Trump's own phraseology, almost sounding like Trump at points...

 

Fawning:

 

"Would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example to·our elections."

 

"Yes you are·absolutely right. Not.only 100%, but actually 1000% "

 

"It might be a very good idea for you to.travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine."

 

"Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower."

 

"The European Union should be our biggest· partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and-I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a· lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union."  (Right after that he gently asks about the funding, and Trump responds by saying "I would like you to do us a favor though".)

 

Zelensky uses the word "friend" 5 times in the conversation.


 

Echoing Trump's phraseology:

 

"We wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government .. You are a great teacher for us and in that. " [Drain the swamp.!]

 

 

" will make sure  I that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. [Only the best people]

 

"That I can assure you ." [Trump uses that exact phrase all the time like a verbal tic.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t mind Mitt’s response. It’s probably the early beginnings of maybe a tiny revolt against Trump before 2020 from elected Rs. 

 

Lindsey’s bootlicker response will probably be the party line anyways. 

 

At this point, you want to continue appealing to the R leaning voters in suburbs who are fleeing this dumpster fire. They are more likely to listen to people like Romney than Trump. They were a key voting bloc in 2018 and will be even moreso in 2020.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:
Its literally going to take trump saying "yeah i did it" before repubs move on him. Even then, they'd just admire him for being honest and forthright

 

Gotta salt the earth of the current crop of R's

 

He said he did it like 2 days ago 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, StillUnknown said:

 

Its literally going to take trump saying "yeah i did it" before repubs move on him. Even then, they'd just admire him for being honest and forthright

 

Gotta salt the earth of the current crop of R's

 

7 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

"deeply troubling"  is code for........."see guys, I was on record saying it was kind of a not good thing"

 

Tbf to Mittens. It's hard to take a stand when you don't have a backbone.

 

So is the early consensus that the House is going to move on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as I predicted, media is already ****ing this up by calling it a transcript. It says right in the doc that it's not a transcript but a summary. The actual call was much longer and the complaint is about several calls. They're falling for Trump's tricks again just like they did the Mueller report

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say we try him in front of a firing squad. Any Senator that votes not guilty can join him. 

Just now, StillUnknown said:

 

It’s such obvious bs even from their own hand edited memoranda. 

 

If the asking for “favors” in this context isn’t asking for quid pro quo then it’s still asking for a foreign power to investigate for the purpose of influencing a US election. 

 

No honest spin possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the obvious talking point now that will be regurgitated is "No Quid Pro Quo" literally every GOP member and pundit is repeating that, trying to make it a rallying cry.  Funny because the released transcript clearly states it is a summary not the entire thing, to mention the whistleblower said what they found troubling happened over the course of multiple calls, AND we still haven't heard from the whistleblower themself.  


So......another dishonest narrative has been born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mammajamma said:

Just as I predicted, media is already ****ing this up by calling it a transcript. It says right in the doc that it's not a transcript but a summary. The actual call was much longer and the complaint is about several calls. They're falling for Trump's tricks again just like they did the Mueller report

I don’t like the way the media covered the Mueller report but what really ****ed it up was that one of the subjects of the investigation was able to select the person who would be in charge of it, and appointed an individual who told us all ahead of time that he was going to cover it up. That and a moronic block of citizens who do not care if the president breaks the law as long as that president is pretending to be on their team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

to mention the whistleblower said what they found troubling happened over the course of multiple calls, AND we still haven't heard from the whistleblower themself.  

 

They're giving us the Bill Barr summary, before releasing the redacted complaint.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that the GOP is just making up that "you need a quid pro quo"  Oh yeah? According to.......who?what?   Just making up things as they go to cover more stuff for the President.  No honest observer would claim there isn't enough already in these transcript summaries to justify further investigation(s). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...