Impeaching Trump: Make America Sane Again

[falafel]

So calling a fellow poster "stupid" is "exposing corruption"? That's interesting.

Corrupt ol' Uncle Ted. Kindness doesn't work against him.

[Bo Diddley]

[Commando]

So calling a fellow poster "stupid" is "exposing corruption"? That's interesting.

YES. GREAT JOB.

[frank ryan]

At least you’re no longer pretending to moderate your written insults. The tolerant left, indeed.

Spare me the virtue signaling. You’re as rude as anyone on here. You try and hide it under your pedantry but you’re not kind to those who you don’t agree with.

[falafel]

YES. GREAT JOB.

Seems like you missed about half of the conversation.

[Goatnapper'96]

Trump told the Russians about our Special Forces operation before he told congress - not normal

We have many problems in this country.

[creekster]

Spare me the virtue signaling. You’re as rude as anyone on here. You try and hide it under your pedantry but you’re not kind to those you don’t agree with.

Virtue signaling? Hardly. And I don't think I ever try to hide anything at all. I think I have generally tried to separate the argument from the person. I don't care if you want to argue about the quality of sources, or the failure to consider the other side of an argument or if you present the other side of the argument. My objection is when you dismiss an argument because the poster is supposedly too stupid to see past his limited sources. And if you really think Ted is too stupid to understand the other side of the argument, then I think you must not have actually read much of what he has posted and you could not possibly be more wrong. But even if it was true (and it is manifestly untrue), flatly saying someone is stupid is rude and serves to avoid and degrade discussion rather than promote it.

Look, we all make stupid arguments sometimes. That does not mean any of us are stupid or that we deserve to be called stupid. Bad arguments generally get eaten up around here. But we usually don't attack each other in a personal way, and I don't think we should do so. But hey, maybe you have uncovered some corruption, or something.

[Uncle Ted]

Virtue signaling? Hardly. And I don't think I ever try to hide anything at all. I think I have generally tried to separate the argument from the person. I don't care if you want to argue about the quality of sources, or the failure to consider the other side of an argument or if you present the other side of the argument. My objection is when you dismiss an argument because the poster is supposedly too stupid to see past his limited sources. And if you really think Ted is too stupid to understand the other side of the argument, then I think you must not have actually read much of what he has posted and you could not possibly be more wrong. But even if it was true (and it is manifestly untrue), flatly saying someone is stupid is rude and serves to avoid and degrade discussion rather than promote it.

Look, we all make stupid arguments sometimes. That does not mean any of us are stupid or that we deserve to be called stupid. Bad arguments generally get eaten up around here. But we usually don't attack each other in a personal way, and I don't think we should do so. But hey, maybe you have uncovered some corruption, or something.

I like it when Frank speaks his mind... it reminds me of Drumpf. That dude is always speaking his mind and has no filter. Good stuff.

[myboynoah]

Embedded Tweet

A White House national security official who is a decorated Iraq war veteran plans to tell House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he heard President Trump appeal to Ukraine’s president to investigate one of his leading political rivals, a request the aide considered so damaging to American interests that he reported it to a superior.

. . . . . . .

He will also testify that he confronted Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, the day the envoy spoke in a White House meeting with Ukrainian officials about “Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the president.”

. . . . . . .

At a debriefing later that day attended by the colonel, Mr. Sondland again urged Ukrainian officials to help with investigations into Mr. Trump’s political rivals.

“Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens and Burisma,” Colonel Vindman said in his draft statement.

“I stated to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate” and that the “request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the N.S.C. was going to get involved in or push,” he added.

Ambassador Sondland, you got some 'splainin to do.

[Uncle Ted]

Embedded Tweet

Ambassador Sondland, you got some 'splainin to do.

Hey, isn't that the PC guy from the commercials?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Hey, isn't that the PC guy from the commercials?

Those ads were great. But I think it was funny that they were touting iTunes as a good thing. Whoops.

[BigPiney]

Those ads were great. But I think it was funny that they were touting iTunes as a good thing. Whoops.

iTunes was the shittiest piece of shit.

[Uncle Ted]

Dammit you dumb Dems... get back in line!

Embedded Tweet

Wait WTF... this is not an impeachment resolution?

Embedded Tweet

By the time the Dems have an impeachment resolution Drumpf's second term will be over!

[frank ryan]

State Department Witness: White House Blocked 2018 Statement Condemning Russia for Attacking Ukraine

Late last year, the Russian coast guard attacked and seized three ships near the illegally annexed Crimean Peninsula, taking two dozen prisoners and pushing the two nations to the brink of all-out war. Within 24 hours, leaders from around the world — German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the foreign ministers of Germany, a spokesperson for then-British Prime Minister Theresa May, the United Kingdom and Canada, European members of the Security Council (France, Sweden, Poland, the Netherlands and the U.K.) — all condemned Russia’s military aggression and called for de-escalation in the region.

But in the United States, President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo had little to say about the so-called Kerch Strait incident, the first instance of armed conflict since the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea. This left many to wonder whether the silence would be viewed as acquiescence to Russian president Vladimir Putin’s increasing combativeness.

When specifically prompted by questions from reporters, President Trump refused to assign blame for the confrontation.

“Not good. We’re not happy about it at all,” Trump said. “We do not like what’s happening either way.”

State Department Foreign Service Officer Christopher J. Anderson, in his opening statement before the House Oversight, Intel and Foreign Affairs Committees on Wednesday, told impeachment investigators, however, that in the wake of the 2018 attack on Ukraine, the State Department drafted a statement rebuking Russia that was subsequently blocked by the White House.

“On November 25, 2018, Russia escalated the conflict further when its forces openly attacked and seized Ukrainian military vessels heading to a Ukrainian port in the Sea of Azov,” Anderson wrote. “While my colleagues at the State Department quickly prepared a statement condemning Russia for its escalation, senior officials in the White House blocked it from being issued.”

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile...cking-ukraine/

[Eddie]

This whole impeachment process just seems weird to me somehow. I get that at the level we're talking about, we're beyond people being impartial and there are political elements to everything - but it just seems odd.

Either Trump broke the law or he didn't. If he did, and there's enough evidence to prove it, then I hope there are appropriate consequences. To me, my unease isn't about that.

I just can't help but compare the impeachment process to a "normal" criminal proceeding.

Some of Trumps critics in the House were saying they were going to impeach him from the day he was elected, before there was any evidence of wrongdoing beyond abrasive and inappropriate tweets. Before there was any talk of Russia or collusion. It's "weird" to me that these folks will now be his jury. People like Maxine Waters, who was calling for his impeachment from the time of his inauguration. Can you imagine being charged with a crime, and as the jury box fills it includes some of your biggest enemies, all saying "yeah, I'm going to get him". People who have been telling the world in front of press conferences for the last 3 years that they are going to convict you of a crime one day.

Of course, the process has to be different than the norm when it comes to the President. Of course it has to rely on a larger body, such as congress, that then must answer to the voters.

I'm just a little bit uneasy at how politicized this has been from the beginning. I wish I had more faith and trust in members of congress to actually review and weight the evidence - but I'm afraid that the vast majority already know that they are going to vote "guilty" or "not guilty" long before any evidence is presented.