No Excuses

The Impeachment Thread

Impeachment  

193 members have voted

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



Recommended Posts

Unless we get a tape recording, the Senate will exonerate the dotard.

 

That said, the Dems are still doing the right thing to impeach him.  They want to put this as a stamp in the history books that they were on the RIGHT SIDE of history.  Conversely, history is NOT going to be kind to the gop dotard bootlickers.   

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

 

Roy-Moore-Gun-e1511806540294-650x380.jpg

You really could not have created a more ridiculous parody of the current "real 'Muricuh" Trump GOP than what this guy was in real life. The only thing out of step with Alabamans was that the teenagers he molested were not blood relations.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, illone said:

Unless we get a tape recording, the Senate will exonerate the dotard.

 

Wouldn't be good enough.  

 

What we've already got is a WH-written press release in which the Trump WH says Trump asked for an investigation of the Bidens.  And the GOP is unanimously advancing the legal theory that if the quid and the pro are delivered in separate envelopes, then it doesn't count.  

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Or someone who can push those buttons, but who's competent.  

 

Remember who finished 2nd to Trump?  

He was competent.

20 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Wouldn't be good enough.  

 

What we've already got is a WH-written press release in which the Trump WH says Trump asked for an investigation of the Bidens.  And the GOP is unanimously advancing the legal theory that if the quid and the pro are delivered in separate envelopes, then it doesn't count.  

 

Unanimously? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm agreeing with you, but I'll be honest. I jus want them to stop trying and looking, because if they dont they'll either eventually find him or someone close.

 

I'd certainly defer to a professional like @Jumbo on this but I'm guessing that it's not especially easy to find a person with such a cornucopia of genuinely awful traits and pathologies as Donald Trump. It's such a uniquely toxic mixture of malignant narcissism, sociopathy, delusions, ignorance, and a life of privilege lived without consequence for bad behavior that it's something you probably couldn't create in a lab if you tried. And it's real. That's the big thing. Other people can try to act like Trump, but he's just so amazingly honestly awful that it's almost impossible and it just comes off as fake. You'd need an exceptionally gifted actor to pull it off convincingly. 

 

And that also speaks to how ugly his base is. The fact that he's truly and honestly that awful is what they love about him. They claim it's just that he's "real, and tells it like it is" but I have a strong feeling that if he were "real, and told it like it was" but was real and honest about wanting to help immigrants, poor people, and champion women's rights they'd hate him. In Trump they've found someone who personifies all of their worst and ugliest impulses and who essentially tells them that all those impulses are not only good but should be nurtured.

 

That being said, I'm with you in a way because eventually after Trump is gone, his base will realize that they'll never find another one of him and they'll start truly accepting people who are willing to simply act as bad as Trump, even if it isn't as real. And that could actually be even more dangerous because that could be someone who champions the same things as Trump while not simultaneously being a complete buffoon. 

Edited by mistertim
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

Can you find a Republican currently in power saying Trump performed a quid pro quo? 

 

Yeah they've taken the somewhat hilarious position that because Trump denied it (after he knew he was caught), then it didn't happen. 

 

"He said 'no quid pro quo'. It's right there in enormous childish sharpie! BOOM! SUCK IT, LIBTARDS!"

 

That's like the cops responding to a reported robbery, searching the area and then picking up a guy who was wearing a ski mask, carrying a bag of money, and had a gun on him, and letting him go because he said "i didn't do it". 

Edited by mistertim
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

That's like the cops responding to a reported robbery, searching the area and then picking up a guy who was wearing a ski mask, carrying a bag of money, and had a gun on him, and letting him go because he said "i didn't do it". 

 

Right. I assume 99.9% of criminals when caught claim they are innocent.  Also I am beginning to wonder if a large portion of Trump supporters believe if the words "Quid Pro Quo" weren't said, then it means there wasn't one. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Right. I assume 99.9% of criminals when caught claim they are innocent.  Also I am beginning to wonder if a large portion of Trump supporters believe if the words "Quid Pro Quo" weren't said, then it means there wasn't one. 

 

I think you're probably right. It's a bit like the obstruction portion of the Mueller investigation; the right was harping on there not being any definitive proof that Trump was trying to obstruct justice, and with corrupt intent, apparently since he didn't get on a phone and say "Hello, I am Donald J Trump, president of the USA. I am informing you that I am about to obstruct justice, knowing fully that it is wrong to do so. Shall we proceed?"

 

By the right's logic with their Trump defenses, if I walk up to someone on the street, lift up my shirt and show them a gun and say "I want all your money" but then someone coming around the corner spooks me and I run off before the person can hand over their cash then I didn't do anything wrong at all. I never said "This is a robbery" or "I am robbing you"....the word robbery was never mentioned. I didn't actually point my gun at them, I just showed it to them. And I never actually got their money. I also never even instructed them to give me their money. I merely said I wanted money. It's not illegal to tell someone you'd like some money from them...people do it all the time!

 

That interaction on the street was perfect. I did nothing wrong.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

Yeah they've taken the somewhat hilarious position that because Trump denied it (after he knew he was caught), then it didn't happen. 

 

"He said 'no quid pro quo'. It's right there in enormous childish sharpie! BOOM! SUCK IT, LIBTARDS!"

 

That's like the cops responding to a reported robbery, searching the area and then picking up a guy who was wearing a ski mask, carrying a bag of money, and had a gun on him, and letting him go because he said "i didn't do it". 

 

Hey, the guy said "No robbery" so I had to let him go...

 

In other news the white house is apparently planning to call Schiff, Pelosi, and Biden as fact witnesses in the senate trial.

 

I'm saving my popcorn...

Edited by illone
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I think you're probably right. It's a bit like the obstruction portion of the Mueller investigation; the right was harping on there not being any definitive proof that Trump was trying to obstruct justice, and with corrupt intent, apparently since he didn't get on a phone and say "Hello, I am Donald J Trump, president of the USA. I am informing you that I am about to obstruct justice, knowing fully that it is wrong to do so. Shall we proceed?"

 

By the right's logic with their Trump defenses, if I walk up to someone on the street, lift up my shirt and show them a gun and say "I want all your money" but then someone coming around the corner spooks me and I run off before the person can hand over their cash then I didn't do anything wrong at all. I never said "This is a robbery" or "I am robbing you"....the word robbery was never mentioned. I didn't actually point my gun at them, I just showed it to them. And I never actually got their money. I also never even instructed them to give me their money. I merely said I wanted money. It's not illegal to tell someone you'd like some money from them...people do it all the time!

 

That interaction on the street was perfect. I did nothing wrong.

Sounds a lot like the defense for collusion: "they don't use the word collusion in any laws, so its totally legal".

Share this post


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

 

 

 

From WaPo:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

 

Quote

Derkach, an independent lawmaker who was formerly a member of a pro-Russian party in parliament, went to the Dzerzhinsky Higher School of the KGB in Moscow. He is the son of a KGB officer who later served as head of Ukrainian intelligence.

 

I definitely see absolutely no way that this guy could have any ulterior motives. 

 

Also, apparently Rudy has now also tweeted that Ukraine assistance could face "major obstacles" if this stuff isn't investigated. Has this dude literally been asleep for the last 2 months?

 

1 hour ago, illone said:

 

Hey, the guy said "No robbery" so I had to let him go...

 

In other news the white house is apparently planning to call Schiff, Pelosi, and Biden as fact witnesses in the senate trial.

 

I'm saving my popcorn...

 

"He also pointed to several random people nearby who were not literally carrying evidence that they'd committed the crime and asked us why we weren't arresting them. It was a very sound argument."

 

40 minutes ago, Simmsy said:

Sounds a lot like the defense for collusion: "they don't use the word collusion in any laws, so its totally legal".

 

Oh god, almost forgot about that one. Another oldie but goldie. I also loved how the vacillated seemingly at random between "There was no collusion" and "Collusion is not a crime". Then we had this gem. Easily the most compelling demonstration of an intellectually rigorous defense I've ever seen:

 

170713091701-kellyanne-conway-flash-cards-fox-news-int--exlarge-169.jpg

Edited by mistertim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chuckle a bit at the thought the Republicans on the Senate want any part of Pelosi or Schiff talking in their planned sham trial. From the perspective of Pelosi and Schiff, I think I would file this under "please don't throw me in the briar patch."

 

That would be about the quickest way for the Republicans to lose control of the narative. 

 

In a sad note, I find myself wondering how long before the R after a politician's name is commonly thought to mean "Russian." 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 sad note, I find myself wondering how long before the R after a politician's name is commonly thought to mean "Russian." 

 

I started to think that right after we found out that the FBI was investigating Republicans of welcoming Russian interference and money for their campaigns was made public.

Share this post


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

I chuckle a bit at the thought the Republicans on the Senate want any part of Pelosi or Schiff talking in their planned sham trial. From the perspective of Pelosi and Schiff, I think I would file this under "please don't throw me in the briar patch."

 

That would be about the quickest way for the Republicans to lose control of the narative. 

 

In a sad note, I find myself wondering how long before the R after a politician's name is commonly thought to mean "Russian." 

 

You can chuckle all you want. When Schiff and his "whistleblower" , who is a KNOWN Dem operative. are pleading the 5th under oath just like EIGHT Obama officials did, You wont be chuckling anymore.

  • Haha 4
  • Confused 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you forget that whistleblowers are protected by law. Plus, Democrats do honor subpoenas and testify. Prime example is Hillary Clinton testifying under oath for 11 hours. 

 

It's the Republicans and Trump and the WH who are running the obstruction exercise. 

 

What is it that the "law and order" Republicans always say, If you don't have anything to hide.... "

Edited by LadySkinsFan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he take the 5th for being contacted? If it were me, I wouldn't give the a dem with speaking experience the spotlight and chance to control the narrative. If you question Schiff, you will get his closing arguements repeated to a whole new audience. You will hear once more what we are supposed to do to protect whistleblowers. Then we will hear questions about why do we need to hear from the second hand witnesses when the first hand ones have already testified confirming what whistleblower alleged.

 

Do you think they want Schiff making that case? I think they are better sticking to witnesses from whom they can pull the counter narative they have been promising, regardless of it's plausibility. Their entire playbook is the story told often enough is believed. If they follow their normal script, they won't give the stage to anyone like Schiff because that lets the other story get told again.

Edited by gbear
  • Like 2

Share this post


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

 

You can chuckle all you want. When Schiff and his "whistleblower" , who is a KNOWN Dem operative. are pleading the 5th under oath just like EIGHT Obama officials did, You wont be chuckling anymore.

 

This was good for a chuckle. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

You can chuckle all you want. When Schiff and his "whistleblower" , who is a KNOWN Dem operative. are pleading the 5th under oath just like EIGHT Obama officials did, You wont be chuckling anymore.

Hey, I want to destroy you but you have to promise to stick around, OK? I don’t wanna waste my time typing if you’re going to run away to the Fox news message boards or something. You’re feeling confident in your position, right? I mean you should... You’re obviously a strong, smart individual and not a mindless dope who is easily conned. You look at this piece of human garbage and say, “Now THERE’S a man who I want to follow!!” so you must be super intelligent and grounded in a solid ethical foundation.

QUgDmz.gif

Edited by Sacks 'n' Stuff
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, clskinsfan said:

 

You can chuckle all you want. When Schiff and his "whistleblower" , who is a KNOWN Dem operative. are pleading the 5th under oath just like EIGHT Obama officials did, You wont be chuckling anymore.

I think you may have had a 5th or two before posting this....

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.