The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (24 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 25 (members: 0, guests: 25)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    By Laura Bassett

    After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

    “Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

    Read the Full Story - InStyle
     
    On a serious note, things like I posted above can be considered problematic, so how will that be ruled. I meant it to be in jest and BobE took it that way. However, someone who doesn't know either of us, could consider it to be me being mean.

    And great, now I just killed the mood.
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    On a serious note, things like I posted above can be considered problematic, so how will that be ruled. I meant it to be in jest and BobE took it that way. However, someone who doesn't know either of us, could consider it to be me being mean.

    And great, now I just killed the mood.
    Click to expand...

    I went ahead and reported you. I reported BobE too, but I always do that. Every. Time. He. Posts.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    I'll ask again, will you admit that Pelosi has been staunchly against impeachment?
    Click to expand...

    She has been opposed, but IMO that is only because the politics dictated that. I believe if she thought it was politically expedient, she would support impeachment on the grounds he got two scoops and every one else got one.
     
    Andrus said:
    Well, I should have stated that where the MCB is concerned we aren't allowing partisan memes that are intended to take shots, incite, insult, yadda, yada!
    Click to expand...

    Big A if you're still here there's an Asian person spamming the hell out of the Pelicans board
     
    Let me ask something, in general. If it comes out the whistleblower is a lifelong republican, Trump voter - does that change your opinion on any of the Ukraine stuff?
     
    Andrus said:
    Memes are generally not allowed on the MCB board, however Beach Friends needed the one that he used in order to make his point, in which case it should be allowed. Whether the point is valid or deserves consideration, well, that is a question.
    Click to expand...

    having a photo as part of a discussion regarding 'ties' seems reasonable to me, too. We see, for example, photos of Trump with Epstein. That can establish a connection that might/might not be part of a discussion.

    But that seems different from posting a photo and saying, "Based on how this guy looks, can you trust this guy?" as if some thumbnail internet image says anything about someone's moral character. That seems to go to another level. Especially when, on the other side of that comment, we have quite a bit of corroboration of what has been said. So, it seems this notion of 'trustworthiness' has some credibility in its affirmation. And a photo pulled from the internet is pretty flimsy when it comes to indictment of someone as a liar.
     
    Lazybones said:
    Come on man, lighten up, the picture is relevant to the discussion.
    Click to expand...

    we don’t know that, at all. We don’t know when that picture was taken, who the people are in the picture or what the occasion was. It’s just a random picture At this point anyway.
     
    MT15 said:
    we don’t know that, at all. We don’t know when that picture was taken, who the people are in the picture or what the occasion was. It’s just a random picture At this point anyway.
    Click to expand...

    A random picture of the whistleblower. Heck I thought it was Snowden.
     
    MT15 said:
    we don’t know that, at all. We don’t know when that picture was taken, who the people are in the picture or what the occasion was. It’s just a random picture At this point anyway.
    Click to expand...
    While it's completely irrelevant, the photo was taken by Nicholas Kamm for AFP on November 9th 2016 during Obama's post-election address. You can see his other images from that day here, including this other photo of the same group of people.

    But it is, of course, completely irrelevant. We don't know that any of them are the whistleblower, and even if they were there it wouldn't matter what expression they had on November 9th 2016, because the whistleblower could be Hillary Clinton herself and it'd still be irrelevant. The information they've provided has already been confirmed by the 'transcript' and the testimony of others. We know the whistleblower hasn't created a fake account of events, because Trump himself released the 'transcript', the contents of which have repeatedly been confirmed and expanded upon by others. So unless the whistleblower is a master hypnotist with access to Trump who's hypnotised him into doing everything he's been accused of, who they are makes not the blindest bit of difference.

    When the content of the accusations have been as well established as they have independently of the whistleblower, trying to make this about their identity is just another attempt at distraction by a group who can't defend the content and have to resort to anything else.
     
    RobF said:
    While it's completely irrelevant, the photo was taken by Nicholas Kamm for AFP on November 9th 2016 during Obama's post-election address. You can see his other images from that day here, including this other photo of the same group of people.

    But it is, of course, completely irrelevant. We don't know that any of them are the whistleblower, and even if they were there it wouldn't matter what expression they had on November 9th 2016, because the whistleblower could be Hillary Clinton herself and it'd still be irrelevant. The information they've provided has already been confirmed by the 'transcript' and the testimony of others. We know the whistleblower hasn't created a fake account of events, because Trump himself released the 'transcript', the contents of which have repeatedly been confirmed and expanded upon by others. So unless the whistleblower is a master hypnotist with access to Trump who's hypnotised him into doing everything he's been accused of, who they are makes not the blindest bit of difference.

    When the content of the accusations have been as well established as they have independently of the whistleblower, trying to make this about their identity is just another attempt at distraction by a group who can't defend the content and have to resort to anything else.
    Click to expand...

    I will disagree with you on the latter part of your post.

    1. The whistleblower has no first hand knowledge
    2. He is also an ultra liberal who hates trump
    3. Low end staffer who is well connected


    Honestly I had a feeling something was up with the whole story shortly after it broke. The media made such a big deal about the whistleblower that it raises my eyebrow. I wasn’t around for Nixon, but did the media start covering for deep throat as soon as the story broke? It almost seemed like the media and the left started trying to protect the identity very quickly. Just seems a little to pre planned for me.
     
    Lazybones said:
    I’m not the guy to ask, however I will happily make a wager if you would like. (I love to gamble especially when I know I will win)
    Click to expand...

    You keep replying as though the identity of the whistleblower is confirmed. Are you speaking from a place of knowledge or are you speculating?
     
    Lazybones said:
    I will disagree with you on the latter part of your post.

    1. The whistleblower has no first hand knowledge
    2. He is also an ultra liberal who hates trump
    3. Low end staffer who is well connected


    Honestly I had a feeling something was up with the whole story shortly after it broke. The media made such a big deal about the whistleblower that it raises my eyebrow. I wasn’t around for Nixon, but did the media start covering for deep throat as soon as the story broke? It almost seemed like the media and the left started trying to protect the identity very quickly. Just seems a little to pre planned for me.
    Click to expand...

    Liberals did not start this. Trump did with his own actions which has been confirmed multiple times both by his own words, by his laywer and several high ranking republican members of his organisation.

    I really don't understand how you can attack someone who is literally just fulfilling his obligations as a public servant by alerting proper authorities about possible abuse of power?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom