Well. She Did It. (impeachment thread)

[SYZ]

@SYZ
...My reaction  to Hawke was coincidentally the same as my reaction to your post and others where you sling about ad hominems.
Have a wild guess as to what that might be. In the meantime,  back on ignore you go.

LOL... Grympy's like one of those little kids that storms off the cricket pitch with his bat and ball if the other
kids won't let him bowl.  It's a funny thing, but he claims to have already had me on his ignore list, but as
if by magic he obviously sees my last posting pointing out his lack of knowledge of Australian politics.  And he
accuses me of using ad hominems by calling me a "Fucking know all"!    Pot, meet kettle.

It's also even funnier to me when losery people make a big deal about putting you on ignore—as though it's
some sort of "punishment" that's gonna piss you off.

And... he won't even admit to making a couple of errors of fact... he can dish it out, but he can't take it.   

[Rainy_D]

On 2 July 2019, the Kyiv Post reported that in spite of the change of government with the 2019 elections (which brought Volodymyr Zelensky in to replace Poroshenko), and many months of preparatory work, both before and after the presidential election, the long-sought independent audit had not yet even started.

I ask you to remember that date: 2 July. We’ll need it again for reference shortly.

Then, on 22 July 2019, Ukrainian media reported that the procurator for military investigations in the Ukrainian prosecutor-general’s office was probing the purchase by Ukraine of the Aeros border surveillance system. Adam Schiff’s sometime fundraiser found one of his two big projects in Ukraine under investigation for corruption: specifically, it appears, for an allegation that the system itself was not necessary for the procurement purpose; for an allegation that it had functionality problems; and for an allegation that the transaction involved embezzlement (although the latter charge doesn’t seem to be directed at Aeros).

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/u...fundraiser

zerohedge article is based on article posted end of sept. zerohedge links to original at top of article.

[Chas]

More and more outlets are beginning to reveal the origin of the fake impeachment.  

So Obama administration corruption relating to Ukraine may well have extended beyond Burisma’s $3 million bribe to the Biden family. President Trump was entirely correct in wanting this Obama/Biden administration corruption to be investigated, but the Democratic Party press seems to have succeeded, bizarrely, in painting Trump as the villain of the story.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2...preads.php

Show ContentSpoiler:

https://i.redd.it/xypxzikdesx31.jpg

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles...ashup.html

This thread is not about Obama or Clinton, it's about Trump.

If the best you've got is "Yeah? Well look at what <your favorite Democrat here> did!  Nyaaa, nyaaa, nyaa" then you 've got nothing more than a weak tu quoque.
Do you have the mental capacity to come up with any actual defense of Trump and his acolytes?

[Rainy_D]

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

[Chas]

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right news and opinion website. It was founded after the 2004 United States presidential election, According to its founder, Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". In 2016, it provided favorable coverage of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and, after Trump's election, was granted press credentials by the White House. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

You never fail to disappoint. 

[Rainy_D]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedi...ble_source

[airportkid]

... Do you have the mental capacity to come up with any actual defense of Trump and his acolytes? ...

You're asking a rubber stamp to create its own image. 

[Dom]

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right news and opinion website. It was founded after the 2004 United States presidential election, According to its founder, Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". In 2016, it provided favorable coverage of Donald Trump's presidential campaign and, after Trump's election, was granted press credentials by the White House. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

[Chas]

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

[Alan V]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ice-229911

By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

[jerry mcmasters]

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

You want him banned for silly political cartoons and memes?

[Dānu]

This is why Eric Ciaramella MUST TESTIFY.
He may have filed his phony second-hand “whistleblower” report because he was definitely in on the plot fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11...ter-biden/

Investigative reporter John Solomon at The Hill reported in April on the January 2016 meeting between Ukrainian officials and Obama officials at the White House.

— Ibid

Mr. Solomon has been a surprisingly central figure in the impeachment proceedings so far. But the glare has not been so kind.

One witness testified to Congress that an article of his was full of “non-truths and non sequiturs.” Another witness said that he could not recall a single thing that was correct in one of Mr. Solomon’s stories, then added sarcastically, “His grammar might have been right.”

---

An examination of Mr. Solomon’s reporting methods and interviews with people who have worked with him during his decades-long career in Washington, show that his techniques blur the boundaries meant to keep journalist-source relationships at an arm’s length. And for some of his biggest stories on Ukraine, he has relied on a prosecutor with a history of making inconsistent statements who is now under criminal investigation.

---

A close look at one piece by Mr. Solomon shows how far one of his assertions, later called into doubt, can reverberate at the highest levels of the government.

In late March, Mr. Solomon and his team published pieces in The Hill making sensational claims of misconduct at the State Department: The American ambassador to Ukraine, a career foreign service officer who assumed her post during the Obama administration, had privately bad-mouthed Mr. Trump and, separately, had previously provided to Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s prosecutor general at the time, a list of individuals that Mr. Lutsenko should not prosecute. In conservative circles, where suspicion of anti-Trump officials working inside the government runs high, the allegation fit with the narrative that institutions like the State Department are rife with bad actors.

But there was less to the do-not-prosecute list than it appeared. The State Department dismissed it as “an outright fabrication.” Mr. Lutsenko changed his story and acknowledged that what he is quoted describing in Mr. Solomon’s report — “a list of people whom we should not prosecute” given to him by the ambassador — did not actually exist.

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

But among Mr. Trump’s allies and media boosters, the story line was set: A corrupt ambassador who did not like the president was misusing her authority to protect her friends. In the whistle-blower complaint that set off the impeachment inquiry, those articles and others by Mr. Solomon are cited as among the key events leading up to Mr. Trump’s demand that the Ukranians do him “a favor” and investigate the Bidens.

(The New York Times)

[jerry mcmasters]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ice-229911

By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

It's easily possible, nothing in the constitution demands a public accounting for how our elected reps decided exactly how they go about impeaching and removing.  But it seems kind of cowardly and shameful.

[Tres Leches]

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

Personally, I have him/ her on ignore. 
I opened a few of today's posts by him/ her and I see I haven't missed a thing.
He/ She doesn't add substantially to the conversation here and besides I get a clearer idea of where the right wing is on Trump's downward spiral by clicking on Fox News from time to time.

-Teresa

[Thumpalumpacus]

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

As @Dom has pointed out previously, I like having him around. His posts help me keep my finger on the pulse of the irredeemably thoughtless. Before you point out the obvious objection, remember that they vote too.

[Alan V]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ice-229911

By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

It's easily possible, nothing in the constitution demands a public accounting for how our elected reps decided exactly how they go about impeaching and removing.  But it seems kind of cowardly and shameful.

But it might be the only way to get the cowardly and shameful to vote honestly.  

However, I don't believe it will happen.  It's just a nice thought.

[jerry mcmasters]

It's easily possible, nothing in the constitution demands a public accounting for how our elected reps decided exactly how they go about impeaching and removing.  But it seems kind of cowardly and shameful.

But it might be the only way to get the cowardly and shameful to vote honestly.  

However, I don't believe it will happen.  It's just a nice thought.

It is a bit of a tricky situation and I understand your point regarding honesty.  But I would still side with "right to know" for the constituents of the actions of their elected reps.  A Trump diehard voter should have the right to know if their rep voted to remove.

[grympy]

You never fail to disappoint. 

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

 
Couldn't agree more.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It is a bit of a tricky situation and I understand your point regarding honesty.  But I would still side with "right to know" for the constituents of the actions of their elected reps.  A Trump diehard voter should have the right to know if their rep voted to remove.

Secret votes have an inherent danger to them, in my eyes.

[Rainy_D]

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

nuff said

Fuck handing over any more USA taxpayer money to Ukraine. Trump was right to hold back. Cant trust none of the sneaky cossack bastards.

Edit:
BTW, who is Ed Buck and why are there pics of him and Adam Schiff together? (for the upsidedowner)

[Chas]

It's what he does. He gets memes and talking points from the alt right sites and posts them here.

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

You want him banned for silly political cartoons and memes?

No, he brings nothing of value to offset his annoying cant.  He's just pointless disruption.

[Chas]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/...ice-229911

By most everyone’s judgment, the Senate will not vote to remove President Donald Trump from office if the House impeaches him. But what if senators could vote on impeachment by secret ballot? If they didn’t have to face backlash from constituents or the media or the president himself, who knows how many Republican senators would vote to remove?

A secret impeachment ballot might sound crazy, but it’s actually quite possible. In fact, it would take only three senators to allow for that possibility.

It's easily possible, nothing in the constitution demands a public accounting for how our elected reps decided exactly how they go about impeaching and removing.

No, it does not.  If you think it does, quote the Article.

But it seems kind of cowardly and shameful.

Why?  Trumpski was elected by secret ballot, he could be removed by secret ballot.

[Dom]

And this is allowed to continue because ... ? 


And before you go all "free speech blah blah blah" on me, this is not the public square.
There is no right to free speech here, there are no rights at all.  There are only permissions.

You want him banned for silly political cartoons and memes?

No, he brings nothing of value to offset his annoying cant.  He's just pointless disruption.

He is the only real trumper we have. He showcases the talking points of the alt right, copies them verbatim. His reasoning is theirs. I find it interesting to be kept up to date. You can put him on ignore and when he says something worth discussing, you can trust that our good people here will respond and you will see it.


I believe in being informed on all levels, and I think putting blinders on and totally ignoring half of the population is not smart. And I believe likely most if not all of us do not watch Fox or read on alt right sites. I don't want to go and monitor those sites either, it would drive me nuts. Think of him as a ticker tape with alt right views and turn it on or off as you wish.


I like that we are not homogenous, that we have people of all ages, nationalities, races, walks of life and opinions. I think that the compartmentalization of a nation is a dangerous thing. Having a "ticker tape" just listing the current talking points of Fox news and alt right outlets is an easy, efficient way to take a look when wanted.


Also, our members are really great at debunking some of his stuff, and I have seen some of the best observations and reasoning on this board in response to the alt right slogans he posts.

I don't ban people because they hold a different opinion or see the world through different colored glasses. They exist, and we do well to acknowledge it so we don't get over run by them. The present situation in the US and various other countries to wit. I don't want to go the route a lot of christian sites take by banning all atheist views. 

Its not so much about free speech as about the presentation of a totally opposite view point, one that is shared by a portion of the population that is significant enough to have toppled our democratic government, so to speak. 

All of that said, yes, he can be annoying and aggravating and hearing alt right views can be taxing. That's why we have the ignore button, engage if you want to, don't if you don't.

[Alan V]

I think it depends on how you assess another person's motivations. If you think someone is intentionally lying to be disruptive, then you place him on ignore. If you think he sincerely holds a different belief and doesn't abuse others because of it, then you listen.

I personally think Rainy is trolling and abusive. I have a hard time believing he's sincere.

[Dānu]

In an interview with The New York Times last month, Mr. Lutsenko blamed the confusion on the interpreter who handled his interview with The Hill. But he insisted that the ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, had in fact asked him not to target certain politicians and activists who worked with the embassy on its anti-corruption efforts.

nuff said

Fuck handing over any more USA taxpayer money to Ukraine.   Trump was right to hold back.  Cant trust none of the sneaky cossack bastards.

Well it's good to know you're not a racist or anything. :rolls-eyes:

“I understood very well what would interest them, I have 23 years in politics. I knew. I’m a political animal." ~ Yuriy Lutsenko

“Lutsenko hated Yovanovitch.” ~ Daria Kaleniuk, the head of Ukraine’s Anticorruption Action Center

"In the interview in London, Mr. Lutsenko said that he told Mr. Giuliani from the start that there was no basis for a case against Mr. Biden or his son."

"[E]ven Mr. Giuliani is now shunning the former prosecutor, denouncing him as “corrupted.”"

(NY Times: Meet the Ukrainian Ex-Prosecutor Behind the Impeachment Furor)

My opinion of Prosecutor General Lutsenko was that he was acting in a self-serving manner, frankly making things up, in order to appear important to the United States, because he wanted to save his job. He was on his way out with the election of a new President. You could read the writing on the wall. This was before [current Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky was elected, but you could see the wave of popularity.

He had been put in place by the former President, Petro Poroshenko. I think there were a couple motivations to this, but I think most important was that he would stay in office probably to prevent investigations into himself for things that he may have done as prosecutor general.

And so by making himself seem important and valuable to the United States, the United States then might object or prevent him from being removed by the new President.

~ Kurt Volker, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine

On the 25th, the day after The Hill article came out, the State Department had a pretty strong statement that said that Mr. Lutsenko's allegations were a fabrication...

~ Marie Yovanovitch, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine

I hadn't really formed much of a personal opinion of [Yuriy Lutsenko], but certainly from the information that I had, not just from our embassy but from also colleagues at the State Department and others across the analytical community, there were clearly some problems with this gentleman in the way that he was conducting his work.

~ Fiona Hill, aide to National Security Adviser John Bolton

Q: And was the information that Mr. Lutsenko provided accurate, to your knowledge?

A: No. It was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs.

~ testimony of George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state

So there was an element in which Ambassador Yovanovitch proffered a no prosecute list, which frankly, based on my experience with her, seemed preposterous.

There was the claim that, you know, this ludicrous claim of the fact that she was embezzling funds, withholding some $4 million from Lutsenko and the reform funds to reform the prosecutor general's office.....

But as far as I recall, the key elements that Mr. Solomon put in that story that were again proffered by Lutsenko, a completely self-serving individual to save his own skin, and to advance the interests of the President, more than likely actually with the backing of the President of Ukraine, and extremely harmful to Ukraine’s own interests, all those elements, as far as I recall, were false.

~ Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine expert on the National Security Council

Later, the Ukrainian prosecutor Solomon quoted as his source, Yuri Lutsenko, was dismissed from his position and disavowed Solomon’s reporting, saying that Hunter Biden “did not violate anything” and now said that his statements to Solomon about a do-not-prosecute list were false. Lutsenko is now under criminal investigation for abuse of power.

(Just Security)

Funny how all your info comes from liars, criminals, and frauds. We have independent corroboration of the information we used to get people like Gates and Cohen to testify. There's nothing in the case of Lutsenko and Shokin. Once again you have a conspiracy theory with no actual evidence, and the only people peddling the conspiracy theory are the corrupt actors who stand to gain from it. You're either so incredibly naive as to not be believed, or you simply want to believe it's true. Meanwhile, we've got witness after witness of honest career employees testifying and you plug your ears and cry, "La la la la la I can't hear you." You aren't interested in the facts. Only what comforts you, no matter the source. You're a tool, plain and simple. You are easily won over by the most ridiculous propaganda, conspiracy theories and lies, and yet you think you're on to something? You're a complete moron.