Opinion: Adam Schiff’s Impeachment Report Exonerates President Trump

Discussion in 'General Politics' started by iceberg, Dec 6, 2019.

  1. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    and regardless of all this, the president sets foreign policy across the board. saying he is interfering with it as the left has done is meant to sway people to their side, NOT be honest.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  2. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    Also sorry in advance to @iceberg for the novel
     
  3. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    all good. i just can't respond right now.
     
  4. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    ah okay you already replied before my last post. Like I said sorry for the novel.

    It's true that Donald Trump, or any President, has wide latitude over their foreign policy. But foreign policy exists for the benefit of the nation; not personal benefit.

    Threatening Mexico with Tariffs for not cooperating with immigration and border crossings is something within his range.

    Threatening Mexico with Tariffs for not approving Trump Tower in Mexico City? Theoretically he can do that, but obviously would be impeached.

    Not saying what we have here is clear as the example I gave; it's not remotely that clear. But it's just an example of the obvious limitations that exist.
     
  5. Nova

    Nova Well-Known Member

    600 Messages
    273 Likes Received
    I don't expect you to. We all have jobs and stuff.

    And honestly if you don't want to respond to it all, that's cool. Mostly just explaining my standpoint
     
  6. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    i'll respond to where i can and just understand your viewpoint on the others.

    best we can do in these times is at least try and understand where viewpoints come from and go from there. :)
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  7. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received
  8. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    part 1 reply:
    sorry. i can get lost in the conversation. the board i usually post on is very active and as i get older, more things "blur". :)

    i agree. trumps use of a personal lawyer is a good reason to go "huh"? and look to see why. i put a lot of things in the category of drawing attention to yourself and this would certainly be on the list.

    my concerns with hunter are simple. why would a company hire someone and pay them $50k+ a month who had zero experience in their industry? given that no company will pay this type of money w/o a return on their investment, what is that? what *is* the return?

    possibilities:
    1) direct line to biden. biden says he never talks to his son about his business dealings. messages and so forth contradict that. biden says he will restrict his son even through he's done nothing wrong. if done nothing wrong, what are you going to restrict? i have found sources to say they were "buying" a line to joe biden and the white house but i can't find them again *and* you would have to question the source. esp these days. but a direct line to biden is a valid assumption as to why they'd pay him this type of money.

    2) money laundering. this comes up a lot and we've seen all kinds of signs on this.
    Solomon: These once-secret memos cast doubt on Joe Biden's Ukraine story
    this is a good story around it and where the money is going. we even have:
    ---
    Burisma’s own accounting records show that it paid tens of thousands of dollars while Hunter Biden served on the board of an American lobbying and public relations firm, Blue Star Strategies, run by Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano, who both served in President Bill Clinton’s administration.
    ---
    so did they in effect hire a lobbiest? what type of ethical issue do we have paying hunter biden millions of dollars at this point so he can lobby before the very government his father is the vice president of?

    we have 7.4 BILLION dollars we've now tracked. hunter bidens take was put at $16.5 million.
    Ukrainian MP Claims $7.4 Billion Obama-Linked Laundering, Puts Biden Group Take At $16.5 Million
    so someone on your board you already pay $50k a month to is now getting $16.5 mil placed into his business by the very gov/businesses that they said were corrupt and needed to go.

    so we have a VPs son making $50k to sit on a board of an energy firm of which he has zero ability to directly help in the subject matter. so what else can he bring to the table to warrant that type of money, much less $16.5 MILLION dollars placed into his business account?

    this SCREAMS kickbacks, laundering and the like. at a very minimum i would expect a president to say "look into it". if you have other reasons why the bidens alone should be getting this money, much less the 7.4 BILLION dollars that made its way to the ukraine and distributed, i'm all ears.

    the quid pro quo relies on trump doing this to stop biden or get dirt on him. so lets look back - does trump have a history of digging up dirt? i'm not aware of it. the bulk of the commentary against trump is he never does any research and shoots from the cuff, leading to "lies" in his boasting and simple name calling any jr high playgound would love. i've not seen a history of trump engaging in dirty politics like this.

    also - trump would eat bidens up in debates and likely enjoy himself along the way. i have a feeling all this attention and fighting makes trump happy. i think he'd much rather run against the gaff-machine biden than a legitimate candidate *of which* the left has really yet to produce.

    so again - assumption here.if you wish to take that route fine. but then it opens up everyone to being able to do the same. you assume trump did this to get dirt, i'm going to assume the bidens did all this to get money. lots of it. i have money given to them for next to nothing and a long line of activities to support that.

    all we have on trump is an assumption of his intent of the statement and his mixing personal lawyers where they shouldn't be. if there are more facts to prop up this assumption, again i'm all ears.

    for this i simply keep asking - why didn't the FBI do the investigation? isn't that their role? while it's not uncommon to hire a team to do the investigations, the feds would usually be involved at some level and *there* while this is being done. this was not the case here.

    my reasons to be suspicious?
    CrowdStrike: Five Things Everyone Is Ignoring About The Russia-DNC Story – True Pundit
    1. Obama Appoints CrowdStrike Officer To Admin Post Two Months Before June 2016 Report On Russia Hacking DNC
    2. The FBI Never Looked At The DNC’s Servers — Only CrowdStrike Did
    3. Comey Contradicted The DNC’s Story On The FBI Asking To See The Server
    4. CrowdStrike Co-Founder Is Fellow On Russia Hawk Group, Has Connections To George Soros, Ukrainian Billionaire
    5. CrowdStrike Is Funded By Clinton-Loving Google $$

    now no, i'm not a fan of those last 2 as they push "vague links" pretty hard and rely on guilt by association in a very heavy manner. while they may play a part in it, i don't think it would be direct. but obama appointing a crowdstrike officer to admin post so close to the report coming to surface? FBI never looking at the server, or even copies of them? comey saying they asked to look the DNC saying "no you didn't". which is it? i think it's been proven the FBI *DID* ask and the DNC said "bugger off"

    why? some actions you simply do not take and not expect people to come down on you. if trump having a personal lawyer mixed up in presidential business is bad, how does this rate?
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  9. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    part 2 reply - 10k character limit.
    1. is there a correct way that he could have asked for the Ukraine to look into democratic corruption that would have given a different result or had the democrats go "oh, that's fine. dig away"? or would *ANY* request be framed as wrong, improper and the like?

    2. the FBI and congress were not doing anything. in digging and the FISA reports, they seem to have a lot to hide and we're seeing that come out daily now. and be excused by the left or dismissed. do you think the left has the right / ability to dismiss any and all claims of corruption we're finding as simply political attacks on them? if that is a valid defense we're screwed to the core, are we not? just because the left is claiming it doesn't make it true. i can go on for pages of things the left has done and claimed "but that's fine". for example, deleting / looking to alter evidence requested. if trump telling his people to ignore a supoena is wrong and an obstruction of congress great. but then what is deleting 33k mails *after* looking to alter the e-mail header info *then* totally destroying the drives in which they sat? isn't that *at least* more of an obstruction than simply not talking to you? while i'm not anxious to get into another hillary debate on this, it does illustrate how the left will ignore something and call it "fine" when in most sane minds, it's a huge neon GUILTY sign. so given the history of congress and the FBI do you think there is ANY chance they're going to look into themselves?

    the FBI has also been busted for altering evidence in order to cast someone as a spy. is this the group you want to look into their own corruption? so yes, someone like trump needs to round this up and dig because the FBI isn't going to hang themselves now are they?

    we live in very strange times and common sense and standards from 20 years ago simply don't play here. sucks.

    3. again, barr i believe is doing a lot of the legwork and digging. while i can certainly see someone saying HEY FOUL for a president to say "investigate my opponent" that assumption is based on it again being for political, not judicial, reasons. the proof of that is shaky at best and relies quite a bit on emotional hearsay evidence.

    also - if we're going to now call calling for an investigation into a political opponent a party foul, what is it when you make up an entire russia narrative to spy on a candidate and then claim bogus links to RUSSIA - now shown to be "personal attacks" in nature by the initial set of FISA reports citing 51 violations of how these warrants were obtained. so you can't tell me what trump did was wrong when the left did all this RUSSIA crap based on them for the most part not wanting trump to be president.

    4. is it appropriate for us to ignore all the evidence the Ukraine has sent us about the DNC enlisting their help against trump?
    Ukrainian Embassy confirms DNC contractor solicited Trump dirt in 2016
    this is not obama, no. but the DNC and other political candidates are knee deep in working with the very country they now cry CORRUPT and hope you don't look at all their own dealings with said corrupt nation. so if what you say is correct, great. apply it to the DNC going after trump through the Ukraine.

    5. nothing is really "benefitting" us these days. we live to be divided and will see no other way. we forgive what our side does and justify it with the actions of the other side as our "moral" compass to do what we know is inherently wrong. but again, these are the times we live in. we've blurred right and wrong so badly, recovery is a long long way away now isn't it? whatever standard you wish to judge by great. but lets use that standard for all and stop the "but we had a reason" with that reason being when all is said and done "you made me do it".

    again they're simply not talking to the democrats. if you want to call that a foul, great. what about schiff making up rules as to why a whistleblower is a protected commodity? when asked to cite legal references for this you get the bug-eyed look and no reply. and given the left has been screaming IMPEACH since the lady in the yellow vest stopped screaming her darth vader NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO - they have zero credibility.

    russia - a lie
    kavanaugh - a lie
    10 more lies - The 10 Biggest Media Lies About Donald Trump
    more - Blatant Media Lies About Trump-Ukraine Non-Scandal Are Never-Ending
    102 "mistakes" - https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/

    when the left has all this against their own credibility and have thrown anything they can against the wall of trump to hope something sticks, why is *this* any different? why is this NOT simply crying wolf AGAIN?

    there may come a day trump does something to warrant all this against him. but he's got a long long way to go to match what the left has done in the last decade. his digging into it and saying "look into this" was, to me, whacking the beehive with negans bat. there simply wouldn't be a good outcome and the people who did all this to begin with will fight to the death to defend themselves, even if it means using past techniques of lying and smearing those coming after you.

    to me, that's all this is.
     
    cml750 and JoeKing like this.
  10. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    JoeKing likes this.
  11. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    It's going to happen. The next Dem elected to the office of POTUS will be impeached by the Repubs if they win back the House.
     
  12. iceberg

    iceberg Well-Known Member

    3,909 Messages
    2,454 Likes Received
    and that is wrong. what we're setting up for future "valid" use blows my mind. the shortsightedness of so many people kills me.
     
  13. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    It is too bad you can't impeach a President after they have left office because it sure looks like the Obama administration broke a lot of laws with the Russiagate they manufactured from thin air and Obama knew about it. Trump has yet to break any laws. Any Democrat elected should only face impeachment if they break the law.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  14. cml750

    cml750 Well-Known Member

    1,263 Messages
    1,242 Likes Received
    I agree that this should be the last purely political impeachment. Perhaps the backlash from this come next November at the ballot box will be enough to scare either party away from doing it again. I would love to see Trump have an election close to Reagan's dominance in 1984 although I see no way New York or the Peoples Republic of California vote for Trump.
     
    JoeKing likes this.
  15. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    Obama can't be impeached but if he or anyone in his White House broke any laws they should still face justice.
     
  16. JoeKing

    JoeKing Well-Known Member

    4,331 Messages
    2,087 Likes Received
    Tom Shillue's impersonation of Adam Schiff cracks me up.

     
  17. speedkilz88

    speedkilz88 Well-Known Member

    1,418 Messages
    1,618 Likes Received

Share This Page