MovieChat Forums > Politics > Do any Democrats here oppose this treaso...

Do any Democrats here oppose this treasonous coup attempt?


Because that's how about half the country views it, including at least some of the Democrats who instigated it.

"#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers" - Mark Zaid, fake "whistleblower's" lawyer in January 2017, after Obama DOJ holdover Sally Yates' grandstanding insubordination

https://twitter.com/MarkSZaidEsq/status/826262311560216578?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fcoup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment

"We will get rid of him" - Zaid, July 2017, reassuring a Democrat poster still upset over losing the election

https://twitter.com/MattWolking/status/1192154058200616965/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.foxnews.com%2Fpolitics%2Fcoup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/coup-has-started-whistleblowers-attorney-said-in-2017-posts-calling-for-impeachment

While there is a provision for impeachment in the Constitution under the right circumstances, no president has ever been forcibly removed from office and the only two presidents to be impeached in over two centuries of the USA's existence provably committed at least some crimes. That's not the case here and this effort is entirely partisan.

It's clear from the quotes above and many others that Democrats have been pushing to impeach Trump all along for whatever pretext they could eventually gin up. What Democrats are doing is unprecedented.

Do you have any misgivings about it at all, or do you fully embrace it? If you support impeachment, have you thought at all about what consequences might result from it, including potentially negative ones for you and your party?

reply

All the komrades do, but they're waiting for orders from higher up the indoctrinated chain of command to tell them it's okay to come out. They all have ZERO INDEPENDENT THOUGHT.

reply

Yes Eric
Yr father has to go!

reply

Remember, the dunce cap is not to remind people that you're stupid. It's to remind you!🥴🤪🥴🤪

reply

So says Simpleton Sandy who is projecting.

reply

Insecure much, koward?

reply

Isn't it time for your meds, Simpleton?

reply

Isn't it time for some kourage, koward komrade?🤪🤪

reply

They only embrace this madness because they've been brainwashed by the media into believing everything they hear. Even showing the facts, like comparing this to what happened with Watergate, doesn't mean anything to them. Even the people accused of witchcraft in Salem at least were told what their crimes were in court.

Everything these swamp rats have been doing has been behind closed doors, because they know they don't have anything they can pin on the President, they're just doing it for show. Frankly, I don't think there ever was a "whistleblower," the Democraps just made him up as part of the lies they've been peddling in both Washington and in the media to destroy Trump. They will fail, just like every other stupid-ass scheme they've hatched to try and take down this guy.

It's like watching Wile E. Coyote fail over and over again to kill the Road-runner so he can finally eat. You just watch, this whole thing will blow up in their faces just like an Acme. rocket that wasn't launched properly.

reply

Good lord!!
Talk about brainwashed!
I grew up in NY and trumps been grifting his whole life!
The guys bad news

reply

Obama holdover and partisan hack Eric Ciaramella is the placeholder for the "whistleblower". He, Zaid, Schiff, and some other Democrats apparently worked out this scheme ahead of time. But you're right, he's obviously not a real whistleblower and they did a poor job gaming this out. It's hilarious going back and seeing Schiff repeatedly talking about the importance of Congress eventually hearing the "whistleblower" testify, only to do a 180 once unsavory facts about him began leaking out and he realized how catastrophic it would be to have a nervous, sweating Ciaramella grilled about his long history of political interactions with Democrat leaders, including the orchestration of this latest farce. Then it all became about "protecting" the "whistleblower's" secrecy and from even having to testify, LOL, and to heck with democracy and transparency.

reply

If the White House would stop stonewalling and let the TRUTH come out of the mouths of Mulvaney, Bolton, Pompeo, Giuliani, Pence and Trump.
Then, only then will my position change on these knuckleheads

reply

I'm so disgusted with the long history of 'publicans undermining the working class in this country, I support anything to subject this ignoramus for being the fraud that he is. Stealing a Supreme Court nomination (McConnell/Gorsuch) really tore it for me, so anyone who cries "partisanship" can jump off a cliff. And the hideous tax cut this jerk wad couldn't wait to inflict on us, the stupid tariff wars, children separated from their guardians, and now he wants to take food out of people's mouths? Good god -- Donald Josef Stalin Trump.

reply

So you're fine with Democrats truly undermining the American working class by importing foreign third world populations to cement their own political power while suppressing wages, along with killing jobs through tax and regulatory policies (Exhibit A: hollowed out urban centers with no tax base after decades of one party Democrat control), and would rather have Obama somehow get to force through a liberal replacement for the deceased conservative icon Scalia in the middle of a presidential election campaign rather than let the people decide something so important in the vote (democracy). You couldn't care less about Obama "separat(ing)" "children" "from their guardians" (or that happening to every American who's arrested, and rightly so), but like a good little Maoist you feign outrage about Trump supposedly doing the same thing (to a far less, more tightly regulated extent) when instructed to by your masters.

Got it. In that case I'm not surprised that you're a treasonous coup supporter willing to shred the Constitution and trample democracy. I appreciate you partly answering the question, though you didn't answer the part about whether you've thought about future consequences or if you're not seeing beyond just myopically wanting to get rid of the "publican" president.

reply

BS rhetoric all day

reply

"#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately. #lawyers" - Mark Zaid, fake "whistleblower's" lawyer in January 2017

reply

What gets me about that is that most of the people who will be affected by the food stamp revocation are, ironically, Trump supporters. Hell, every person I know who is on food stamps is a Trump supporter.

Statistically, red states are the highest draw in this area.

Classic case of imbeciles voting to hurt themselves.

Have you ever seen National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation? Trumpers always say: "he's just like us!". No, Trump isn't. Trump is like that boss in Christmas Vacation to the letter: can't remember his employee's names, doesn't give a rat's ass about the worker stiffs beneath him and cuts all their bonuses out without notice to save himself money. THAT is who Trump most closely relates to. It's absolutely headache-inducing how Trumpers can't see that.

reply

"Democrats are about twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps at some point in their lives—"

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/

I doubt you actually know any Trump supporters given your cloistered existence and warped view of reality, but it's nice that you again unwittingly reveal your true character by attacking millions of low income people as "imbeciles" merely because you were stupid enough to be misled into believing they mostly voted for Trump after you uncritically swallowed half-assed DNC propaganda.

That your position here, even if true, would only reinforce that Republicans are acting out of openly espoused principle rather than crassly bribing a constituency, which is laudable, illustrates that you're the imbecile.

While that is true of course no one opposes a safety net for the truly needy. During Obama's bloated welfare expansion it wasn't just the truly needy receiving food stamps. And it'd be nice if Democrats could at least agree that being on food stamps isn't a good thing. The goal for both parties should be to reduce the number of Americans receiving welfare, not jack it up as high as possible to foster dependence on government (and therefore political support).

Fortunately the main reason the number on food stamps is falling is the success of Trump's economic policies.



reply

Can’t help stupid.

reply

No doubt

reply

"Stealing a Supreme Court nomination (McConnell/Gorsuch) "

Classic example of the Republican mentality at work.

When they are in power, they'll do anything they can get away with. We're just going to do a blanket rejection of anyone Obama nominates to the court for a full year because we can. We get to make the rules.

Meanwhile an investigation into a Republican's shady dealings that follows the constitution and the law to a T is called a coup, unconstitutional, treason!

reply

We're just going to do a blanket rejection of anyone Obama nominates to the court for a full year because we can.

Insanely false equivalence. Republicans really were following the rules and siding with democracy and common sense. You don't get to steal the Supreme Court because your biggest enemy suddenly dies under mysterious circumstances when the country is in the middle of a presidential election and Republicans had just won historic gains in the most recent election, retaking the Senate and expanding their majority in the House. That Trump won the impending presidential election validates Republican actions even more. The SCOTUS itself became a huge election issue, and rightly so.

Classic example of the Republican mentality at work.

When they are in power, they'll do anything they can get away with... We get to make the rules.

Are you kidding? Democrats are the ones always ditching traditions and changing the rules (e.g. "nuclear option" on filibusters, former presidents criticizing current ones, politicizing judicial nominees, politics stopping at the water's edge, censoring opponents to silence dissent). Republicans tend to just abide with whatever new paradigm Democrats have established. Now that's apparently criminalizing political disagreement (surveilling opponents and ruining lives over petty stuff because you're upset over losing an election) and purely political impeachments of sitting presidents with no proof of a crime, leaving the country less stable and more divided.

reply

There is no coup attempt.

You're a troll and nothing more.

The fact that just about every Trumper online acts like you says a lot about that absolute piece of SHIT of a human being Trump is.

Spin spin and spin some more, troll. I'd report your trolling but the moderators here don't seem to care, so have fun with it, I guess.

reply

There is no coup attempt.

The fake "whistleblower's" lawyer (a key figure in orchestrating this charade) has said otherwise from the beginning and his words met with approval from other Democrats, which dovetails with comments from many others and the broader phenomenon of Democrats dubbing themselves "the Resistance", adopting the language of war and signaling a struggle against the elected President by any means necessary, as opposed to the traditional "loyal opposition".

Your hateful but substantively empty retorts perfectly illustrate what I'm trying to highlight, so I thank you for responding. You falsely accuse me of being a "troll" (which any honest person can clearly see isn't true), and admit that you've used the report function to try to silence people who disagree with you like a true far left statist, fortunately ultimately unsuccessfully.

You're an intellectually bankrupt coward.

I'll assume from your response that you're fine with Democrats using the strategy of criminalizing political opposition (as Alan Dershowitz, a rare honest liberal put it), against even peripheral Trump associates, and wanting to impeach the elected President from the beginning for whatever pretext they could eventually gin up, as has been undeniably documented.

You failed to answer the question about whether you've put any thought at all into the consequences of this purely partisan impeachment with no due process and a lack of any proven or even serious accusation of criminal wrongdoing beyond getting rid of "ORANGEMAN!", but one can guess.

reply

Like I said, you're a troll.

Spin spin spin to your heart's content. Why you decided to make a hobby out of making yourself look stupid online is beyond me but we all have our hobbies, I guess.

reply

Even you don't believe I'm a troll or you wouldn't be repeatedly replying to me. False accusations like yours are a poor substitute for articulating actual arguments.

Asking people if they've considered the consequences of an extremely controversial, undeniably partisan impeachment push is as legitimate a topic as one can post on a politics board. By spinning your wheels here you're coming off as an unscrupulous moron, as always.

reply

Spin. SPIIIIIN, troll. Spin!

reply

See? You're the one trolling, except you suck at it and end up just bumping the thread.

reply

SPIIIN! Spin, troll! SPIIIN!

reply

[–] dteam6 (3426) 10 hours ago
Why you decided to make a hobby out of making yourself look stupid online is beyond me


The only one looking stupid & foolish here is you. Your post as of late have the demeanor of a tyrannical wretch.

reply

One of your crazier posts.

This is out in the open, following the law, requiring a vote by the House and then, after a trial, by the Senate.

It's not even close to fitting the definition of a coup.

reply

No, it's completely sane, I'm very serious, and even the provocative title is based on a chief Democrat architect's own words.

It's called a "coup" because it's an attempt to oust the elected president under false pretenses for political reasons. The Constitution isn't foolproof. Stability depends on enough leaders doing the right thing rather than trying to game the system, in this case violating both the letter and spirit of the "impeachment" segment for a narrow, partisan, obsessive vendetta. As Turley laid out in his testimony, in public discussions the founding fathers warned about the dangers of factional impeachments and certainly opposed the notion that the House could or should impeach for any reason it wants. They adopted the language they did to try and restrict impeachment after seeing its abuses in British history, and even the Brits had more restrictions than the Democrats' current working theory of "the House gets to do whatever it wants".

But you may have missed the part of the op where I point out that about half the country views it as a treasonous coup attempt. Whether you do or not, that's a fact you have to deal with unless you ignore reality. Even if you believed you somehow had a technically sound case for impeachment does that necessarily mean you should impeach?

Have you thought through the potential consequences of forcing through impeachment on a purely partisan basis (likely against bipartisan opposition), when you're not able to bring half the country with you and if anything it's been looking like opposition to impeachment has increased since these hearings began, especially among moderates in battleground states?

I'm not just talking about the next election either, but the long term impact this precedent would have on the stability of the country.

reply

Your whole premise is based on conspiracy nonsense.

'It's a coup because #coup has started.'

'It's a coup because a lawyer said "we will get rid of him."'

None of that is evidence of an actual coup. Trump demanded Ukraine to investigate Biden and threatened to withhold aid if they didn't. There's no evidence that Shokin was wrongfully terminated. Giuliani is in Ukraine right now hoping and wishing that evidence pops up, but there was never anything to hang those hopes and wishes upon in the first place. It was just a means to smear Biden to weaken him for 2020.

Then we find out just how deep the plot went with Giuliani. He teamed up with Parnas and Fruman to lead a smear campaign against everyone that fought against pro-Russian corruption in Ukraine. Then we find out Devin Nunes was included in this plot, yet he's on the goddamn committee and didn't recuse himself.

It's no wonder you're deflecting with "#coup" and "lawyer said" twitter posts. You've hit the bottom of the barrel.

reply

Wrong. I quoted the fake whistleblower's lawyer, a Democratic activist who got a lot of support and encouragement with his "coup" boasts.

By contrast your post is a series of hysterical lies and actual conspiracy theory nonsense that's been debunked.

I'm on solid ground in rejecting your premises. By contrast you can't rationally dispute the premise that Democrats have openly wanted to impeach Trump since the beginning for whatever pretext they could gin up, the fact that this impeachment effort is purely partisan, or the fact that no crime has been proved.

reply

Like I said, a lawyer who said "we will get rid of him" is not evidence of a coup. The whistleblower is irrelevant ever since the White House released the rough transcript.

You say what I wrote has been debunked because you are a coward.

Show the evidence that Shokin did not deserve to be fired. You can't. Nobody can. Giuliani is trying right now to prove what you want to believe is true but you are too much of a coward to even admit you believe its true. That's why you're engaging in this whistleblower lawyer and #coup nonsense. You've hit the bottom of the barrel just like John Solomon.

The more you dance around the meat and potatoes of the issue, the more we all see its just you dancing.

reply

Wrong. I've explained all over this thread why it's a "coup" attempt. The fake "whistleblower", whose key claims were debunked by the transcript, is what launched this impeachment farce, so it's laughable to call him "irrelevant". But he was a prop. The Democrat activist lawyer Zaid, who spent years offering cash payments for dirt on Trump by CIA officers, is the more important figure.

You haven't addressed anything I said because you're a cowardly moron who lacks the intellectual or moral equipment to do so. My point on the Bidens' factual conflict of interest, which has nothing to do with Republicans or "John Solomon", is that it provides a legitimate basis for any president, other law enforcement official, or concerned citizen to inquire about. Subsidiary questions nailing down things like why Shokin was fired (should his successor have been fired too or not? Democrats have gone back and forth on that) or what pay to play certain Ukrainian oligarchs (or the Chinese government) might have gotten out of the Bidens' set up underscore why investigation is warranted.

Meanwhile, being a coward, you dodge this key point:

By contrast you can't rationally dispute the premise that Democrats have openly wanted to impeach Trump since the beginning for whatever pretext they could gin up, the fact that this impeachment effort is purely partisan, or the fact that no crime has been proved.

reply

The whistleblower's "key claims" are meaningless. Just like the whistleblower is meaningless.

The cops have arrived, have reviewed some rough footage, and are listening to witness testimony that justifies the cops' arrival. It no longer matters if the guy that called the cops got some details wrong.

Meanwhile, Trump's whole argument revolves around the firing of Shokin. In order for Biden to be worth investigating, there has to be evidence that Shokin was wrongfully fired.

There's no cowardice on my part because I know 100% that Shokin was rightfully fired. The entire western world knew he was corrupt before Biden was ever asked to pressure Ukraine.

You are too cowardly to defend Shokin because you secretly agree with me that his firing was 100% justified. That is why you are a fraud.

By contrast you can't rationally dispute the premise that Democrats have openly wanted to impeach Trump since the beginning for whatever pretext they could gin up, the fact that this impeachment effort is purely partisan, or the fact that no crime has been proved.
This is not a point. This is like saying the world is flat because NASA lied before. It doesn't matter whether NASA lied before or not. In order to prove the world is flat, you gotta prove the world is flat. The president doesn't get a pass simply because the other party wants him impeached. Every president has an opposing party that wishes they had a reason to impeach him.

As for the crime, it's the quid. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. The only reason Trump is not in trouble right now is because he is president. If Trump were not president, he would be facing indictment and treason charges right now.

reply

The whistleblower's "key claims" are meaningless. Just like the whistleblower is meaningless.

The cops have arrived, have reviewed some rough footage, and are listening to witness testimony that justifies the cops' arrival. It no longer matters if the guy that called the cops got some details wrong.

It's not "meaningless" because it was the pretext, orchestrated with Schiff ahead of time, that Democrats used to launch this whole impeachment train wreck. They weren't expecting Trump to quickly release the transcript debunking the claims.

Schiff and Nadler, the two biggest hacks on Capitol Hill, aren't the "cops". They're serial liars abusing their power to subvert democracy.
There's no cowardice on my part because I know 100% that Shokin was rightfully fired. The entire western world knew he was corrupt before Biden was ever asked to pressure Ukraine.

You are too cowardly to defend Shokin because you secretly agree with me that his firing was 100% justified. That is why you are a fraud.

Wrong. I'm not sure what exactly happened, there being disputing claims, which is why it's worth an inquiry. You're a coward because you fear such questions. I'll add that a few of Obama's western European allies don't constitute "the entire Western world", and that basically all these Ukrainian officials have been accused of corruption, but only the one who insists he was investigating Biden's son was the one Biden extorted Ukraine into firing. What's hilarious is that pretty much all Democrats and Republicans agreed James Comey should be fired, but when Trump finally fired him Democrats did a 180 pivot and accused Trump of firing him for the "wrong" reason, launching the BS Russian collusion/obstruction of justice hoax, which Nadler is apparently falling back on given that Ukraine proved to be more of a dud than they had hoped. Hypocritical Democrats even took to lionizing the weasel bureaucrat Comey as some kind of noble hero.
The president doesn't get a pass simply because the other party wants him impeached. Every president has an opposing party that wishes they had a reason to impeach him.

No, it goes to motive and credibility. Republicans never seriously talked about impeaching Obama or took any action to do so despite Obama being caught in multiple real scandals, from weaponizing the IRS to suppress political opponents (worse than anything Nixon did) to things like Fast and Furious and Benghazi where people died. Obama was even hit with an historically large fine for true campaign finance violations, and it was barely mentioned in the news with no Republicans demanding impeachment over the crimes.

More pertinently Biden doesn’t get immunity just because he decides to run for president.
As for the crime, it's the quid. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. The only reason Trump is not in trouble right now is because he is president. If Trump were not president, he would be facing indictment and treason charges right now

Wrong. Nothing Trump did was illegal. He was just doing his job as president. And if he wasn’t president it still would have been legal for a private citizen to ask such a question.






reply

The pretext doesn't matter any more. Once the cops arrive and see rough footage and hear witness testimony that justifies the cops being there, it doesn't matter even if it was a prank call at that point. The prank caller would be an accidental hero. But this wasn't a prank call. The gist of the whistleblower's report is that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate a political opponent for political gain.

Wrong. I'm not sure what exactly happened, there being disputing claims, which is why it's worth an inquiry. You're a coward because you fear such questions.
This is why you are a fraud. You support an investigation into Biden because you "don't know what happened." Yet there is no whistleblower saying Biden did anything wrong. And there isn't even a case into Hunter Biden for Ukraine to look at. The Burisma case that was put on standby doesn't even include Hunter in it.

Yet we had a whisteblower who alerted the cops to show up and investigate Trump. We have an investigation going on right now that is providing witness testimony that Trump wanted Zelensky to say it as loud as possible that they were investigating Biden. And we're getting witness testimony that the White House is involved in a scheme to blame Ukraine for Russia's interference.

If it's about Biden with no phone call, no transcript, no anything: "we need an inquiry."

If it's about Trump with a rough transcript and witness testimony: "This is a goddamn Coup! Blargh!"

You are pathetic.

reply

Again, Schiff and Nadler aren't "cops" but partisan hacks, and your "for political gain" spin is garbage. Trump inquired about a specific case; he didn't ask for any dirt on Biden they could dig up or manufacture like Democrats did to candidate Trump. Unlike Democrats, Trump was only seeking the truth and on a legitimate issue of inquiry. It wasn't remotely illegal. In fact it's his job. Whether he'd potentially "politically gain" from it or not, a subjective assessment anyway, is irrelevant and Biden's fault, not his own.

This is why you are a fraud. You support an investigation into Biden because you "don't know what happened." Yet there is no whistleblower saying Biden did anything wrong
And there isn't even a case into Hunter Biden for Ukraine to look at. The Burisma case that was put on standby doesn't even include Hunter in it.

Biden himself openly boasted about his extortion so there's no need for a "whistleblower". Shokin and other Ukrainian officials accuse Biden of wrongdoing and dispute everything you say. Aside from the firing, the conflict of interest and potential for broad corruption is a fact conceded even by liberal "ethics watchdogs" and outfits from Politico to ABC news. That I want an investigation because I don't pretend we know with certainty what happened in Ukraine shows I'm not a fraud. That you pretend otherwise and are so deathly afraid of one that you want to criminally come down on anyone who asks questions about the Bidens' dealings underscores that you are a fraud, as does your refusal to answer this question:

https://moviechat.org/bd0000082/Politics/5dee9c0c3231dd71bffcf26a/How-many-Democrats-here-would-support-impeaching-Obama-if-this-same-case-had-been-brought-against-him

But to you, anything that investigates Trump is just a coup.

This isn't an "investigation", it's an impeachment effort that's gone from railroad job to train wreck. I'm fine with people (including, remember, Zaid in a rare moment of honesty) calling something a coup if it's an attempt to oust an elected president for purely political reasons with no real evidence of a crime, let alone one serious enough to justify impeachment.

As Jonathan Turley rightly pointed out, Democrats are the ones abusing their power. As a lifelong Democrat himself and one of the two most prominent liberal legal academics in the country (the other being Alan Dershowitz, who also strongly opposes impeachment), he has the type of credibility that Democrats who have been screaming for “impeachment!” since they lost the election lack.




reply

Biden openly boasted about withholding loan guarantees to pressure Ukraine to fire a known corrupt prosecutor general.

In order for Biden to be investigated for wrongdoing, there needs to be some sort of lead that the prosecutor general was wrongfully fired.

You're too much of a coward to say the prosecutor general was wrongfully fired. All you can do is say "We should investigate Biden because we don't know." Which is complete nonsense. We already know the International Monetary Fund wanted Shokin gone prior to Ukraine getting those loan guarantees.

And we already know there was NO investigation into Hunter Biden. Such a thing never existed even as an idea in Ukraine. The entirety of the investigation into Burisma was before Hunter joined, and the case went dormant before Shokin was fired.

So now Trump has a double problem. He has to create a brand new investigation into Hunter despite not a single evidence of wrongdoing. And then he has to hope wrongdoing is found so he can open an investigation into Joe.

You say I'm scared of Biden being investigated, but you completely ignore the fact that no republican has the balls or means to get it started due to the problems stated above. This is why Giuliani is going at it alone. And nobody is afraid of Giuliani's investigation into Biden. Not a single soul. All Rudy can do is expose himself as the complete joke he is.

The process cannot harm Trump. Only the substance can. You whine about the process because you want the substance to remain hidden.

reply

Wrong. Like the coward you are, you again ignore my point that virtually all modern Ukrainian prosecutors have been called "corrupt", and yet Biden only strong armed Ukraine into firing one of them.

Aside from the fact that for a while at least Democrats were claiming that extortion per se, which Biden undeniably boasted about, would be a "crime" if Trump had done it, it's an undisputed fact that Hunter worked for Burisma when he did, got paid what he did, had the (lack of) qualifications he did, and that this took place while his VP daddy was the Ukraine/energy sector "point man" for Obama.

Those facts, along with claims by Shokin and other Ukrainian officials accusing Biden of wrongdoing and/or contradicting pretty much everything you just posted is more than enough reason (or "lead", as you called it) for at least inquiring about the integrity of past investigations, and asking about the feasibility of a fresh one with what's hopefully and widely thought to finally be an honest Ukrainian regime; certainly one elected on campaigning against the entrenched, pervasive corruption of recent years.

Me not pretending to be psychic like you are and retaining an open mind about these issues enhances my credibility if anything. You're so afraid of an investigation into Biden that you whine about Trump even inquiring to the Ukrainians about it and demand his removal from office over it, LOL. Of course you probably care even more about getting rid of Trump by any means necessary than you do about protecting Biden. The substance has already exonerated Trump. You have no case.

Your position is craven, hypocritical, and ludicrous.

reply

The quid is the crime. The pro quo only amplifies the quid if the quid is a criminal act. Since the removal of Shokin was lawful, a pro quo doesn't amplify anything. Since asking Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into Joe Biden is unlawful, the pro quo amplifies it.

Wrong. Like the coward you are, you again ignore my point that virtually all modern Ukrainian prosecutors have been called "corrupt", and yet Biden only strong armed Ukraine into firing one of them.
The corruption that Ukraine has been actively fighting against are the pro-Russian oligarchs such as Dmitryo Firtash. Dmitryo Firtash is the financial beneficiary Trump has aligned with and is the source of Giuliani's shadow diplomacy to make Ukraine corrupt again.

If Trump truly wants to exonerate himself, he'll need to throw Rudy under the bus. My guess is Trump will not do that since he believes the Senate will never impeach him, something I'm sure Rudy reminds him all the time.

However, Giuliani doesn't have the office of the presidency to protect him. He'll join Cohen, Manafort, Stone, and Flynn as casualties of Trump's corruption. You can go on and on about how Trump is a victim here. But this isn't just some political theater like the Clinton impeachment where we all knew Clinton had no chance of being indicted. This is Nixon level stuff where Trump may have to resign in exchange for a pardon.

Assuming Trump wins a second term, he'll have no choice but to try for a third. And when he fails to get it, he'll have a shitload of stuff to worry about far away from a bruised ego.

But by then, you'll have jumped off the Trump bandwagon and will be one of many saying you were the sole voice of reason of right-wingers that thought Trump should be impeached. lmao

reply

Nothing Trump did is remotely unlawful and you can't cogently articulate the laws he supposedly broke. Ukrainian corruption has been pervasive on all sides, complete with both ethnic Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, and while Hunter Biden was directly working for oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, the only Ukrainian Trump has "aligned" himself with is the new outsider president elected on an anti-corruption platform (sound familiar?) who's refuted every Democrat accusation.

Most of your post descends into feverish wishful delusion that transcends conspiracy theory nonsense. It makes for a funny read.



reply

It's very simple. Trump can't say the Biden investigation was a legitimate attempt to rid Ukraine of corruption until he proves that Shokin deserved to keep his job. And to do that he needs evidence that Hunter did something wrong. That's two hurdles Trump and his cohorts haven't even attempted to overcome. Instead it's just "everything Trump did is ok because Biden did it too" which isn't even a solid defense if it was true that's what Biden did. But then you peel back the layers and realize Biden fired Shokin because the IMF, the ambassador, and the Ukrainian people all wanted his soviet-uniform wearing ass outta there. And then you learn Hunter joined the board after the Burisma tax fraud case went dormant. But you Trumptards just gotta stick your head in the sand while fantasizing about Obama behind bars, probably for being born in Kenya or whatever conspiracy the alt-right cooked up this week.

reply

Trump can't say the Biden investigation was a legitimate attempt to rid Ukraine of corruption until he proves that Shokin deserved to keep his job.

That's not true at all. Shokin could have deserved to have been fired for all sorts of reasons and still been fired for legitimately wanting to investigate Biden, in which case both he and Biden are guilty of things. Or he could have had sterling integrity as a prosecutor and been the victim of a smear campaign by political enemies (including Obama's cronies). In that event Biden could have either fired him to protect his corrupt son or because he honestly but mistakenly believed Shokin was corrupt and he was trying to fight corruption himself.

Of course which scenario is true doesn't change the fact that it was legitimate for the President to inquire about it. Such inquiries are an essential part of finding out the truth. Your post betrays ignorance of logic as well as the law. The last section, which descends into mad ravings about Kenya and the "alt right", really shows you're a moron. Yet more funny stuff.

reply

I think Hillary will wait till Donald is gone to a rally and then bring her booze to the White House and get everyone drunk then go in and take over the place.

reply

so far not one tds sufferer has come out against this coup...

reply

Sadly half the political spectrum hates this country and is dedicated to destroying it.

reply

They want to destroy it so they can take over. Then people will have to rely on democraps for everything.

reply

The pubs have already cornered that market. One percent loves the US, the rest of us are in pain.

reply

Nope.

reply