• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Is time to ask the 5 million dollar question on impeachment?

Guynamedbilly

Member
Feb 28, 2018
568
561
400
Trump asked for dirt on Biden. Told Ukranians Rudy would help getting it. Rudy admits to trying to get it. Aid was withheld. Sondland who spoke to Trump admits that based on their conversations the aid was dependent on an investigation. Multiple other officials confirm a similar picture. What else do you need Sherlock? A manuscript saying "hey Zelensky, give me dirt on Biden or you don't get aid". At least give your orange emperor a bit more credit that that.
So... no?
 

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
2,324
2,438
655
Trump asked for dirt on Biden. Told Ukranians Rudy would help getting it. Rudy admits to trying to get it. Aid was withheld. Sondland who spoke to Trump admits that based on their conversations the aid was dependent on an investigation. Multiple other officials confirm a similar picture. What else do you need Sherlock? A manuscript saying "hey Zelensky, give me dirt on Biden or you don't get aid". At least give your orange emperor a bit more credit that that.
I am not 100% sure on this but I thought what Sondland admitted was that he "presumed" there was a quid pro quo, not that Trump explicitly told him that the aid was contingent on Ukraine's assistance. In fact didn't he originally say Trump told him explicitly "there was no quid pro quo"? Otherwise why wouldn't the Dems be calling him up as one of the first witnesses next week?

The impression I'm getting is that Trump's own policy on Ukraine was incoherent and ambiguous and you can see that from all the testimony so far.
 
Last edited:

zeorhymer

Gold Member
Nov 9, 2013
1,792
1,313
715
San Francisco, CA
I just came across something interesting about this whole impeachment thing. If the impeachment does happen, then Senate will have to step in. If that's the case, the sitting members may be sequestered for quite a bit of time. Not quite sure if Warren and Sanders would want to stop their campaigning and go back and sit on the proceedings.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: Cravis

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
16,348
32,047
1,290
USA
dunpachi.com
I just came across something interesting about this whole impeachment thing. If the impeachment does happen, then Senate will have to step in. If that's the case, the sitting members may be sequestered for quite a bit of time. Not quite sure if Warren and Sanders would want to stop their campaigning and go back and sit on the proceedings.
The prediction is that Mitch will quickly push it to a vote and crush it.

However, it'd be hilarious to see him drag it out for as many weeks/months as he can to tie up the Democrat presidential candidates in the Senate.

Sanders, Klobuchar, Warren, Harris, and Booker (is he still in the race?) would all have to leave the campaign trail to handle this, and after the years of bluster about impeachment, it would look pretty bad if the Democrat runners didn't actually participate in the impeachment when it finally came to their turn in the process.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
I am not 100% sure on this but I thought what Sondland admitted was that he "presumed" there was a quid pro quo, not that Trump explicitly told him that the aid was contingent on Ukraine's assistance. In fact didn't he originally say Trump told him explicitly "there was no quid pro quo"? Otherwise why wouldn't the Dems be calling him up as one of the first witnesses next week?

The impression I'm getting is that Trump's own policy on Ukraine was incoherent and ambiguous and you can see that from all the testimony so far.
Sondland seemed to come to the understanding that aid was dependent on the investigation. You are right it may not have come directly from the president to Sondland, but likely from Rudy who was helping the president orchestrate this. There is evidence Rudy pushed for this dependence and he is the personal lawyer for the president (even though he claims he was acting as a private citizen, despite the president telling him to deal with Ukraine and directing the Ukraine government to do the same). Sondland went as far as to tell top Ukrainian officials this (aid dependence) was the case, seems like a pretty extreme thing to say without corroboration. Likewise, the fact that he lied about it in his initial testimony is also very telling.

The other thing that makes this suspicious is when Sondland called Trump and asked "what do you want with Ukraine", the president replied "there is no quid pro quo", as though he already knew that people had caught onto his scheme.

I don't think it's hard to show that Ukraine aid was tied to the investigation. The key thing to prove is whether Trump did this as a pure hearted anti-corruption hero or a scheming sleezeball trying to collect dirt on his opponent. I think that's an easy one even for Trump supporters to figure out.

Now that I've went over all the testimonies again, I am becoming convinced that this may have been a scheme Rudy cooked up and the president went along with it. Expect Rudy to get thrown under the bus if all of this goes too far south.
 
  • Thoughtful
Reactions: pramod

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
Or maybe Trump thinks that the American public deserves to know if the potential next president of the USA was using his power to save his son and enrich him. I mean the Democrats thought the American's needed to know that Trump was Putins bitch/Russian spy/traitor, so whats good for the geese is good for the gander.
 

Hotspurr

Member
Jan 27, 2018
757
894
380
Or maybe Trump thinks that the American public deserves to know if the potential next president of the USA was using his power to save his son and enrich him. I mean the Democrats thought the American's needed to know that Trump was Putins bitch/Russian spy/traitor, so whats good for the geese is good for the gander.
Perhaps Trump should also open additional investigations into himself, on grounds of misusing charity funds for personal gain, defrauding numerous Trump University students, paying pornstar hookers with campaign funds, and the list goes on, and on. Can we really trust someone like that in office?

My point is not whataboutism, my point is that anyone with a brain would understand that Trump didn't care about corruption but was doing it for himself, or having Rudy do the thinking for him (the latter is more likely, since he usually backtracks on a lot of bad choices).
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Tesseract

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,766
5,982
420
Perhaps Trump should also open additional investigations into himself, on grounds of misusing charity funds for personal gain, defrauding numerous Trump University students, paying pornstar hookers with campaign funds, and the list goes on, and on. Can we really trust someone like that in office?

My point is not whataboutism, my point is that anyone with a brain would understand that Trump didn't care about corruption but was doing it for himself, or having Rudy do the thinking for him (the latter is more likely, since he usually backtracks on a lot of bad choices).
This entire impeachment charade relies on whataboutism. you only care about “corruption” when it flows one way.

There have been a dozen “investigations” into Trump. One investigation hits a Democrat, and you cry foul. 😂
 

Sacred

Member
Aug 22, 2018
467
466
285
They have absolutely nothing and will waste more tax payer dollars on another damn clown show that will further embarrass our country and their entire party.
 
Last edited:

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
At the J Street conference this week in Washington, D.C., for example, Sanders suggested to the attendees of the liberal Jewish Middle East policy group that, while the $3.8 billion in aid the U.S. commits to Israel each year should remain intact, he wondered out loud if this aid could be conditional. “My solution is to say to Israel: you get $3.8 billion dollars every year, if you want military aid you’re going to have to fundamentally change your relationship to the people of Gaza,” Sanders said. “In fact,” he added with breathtaking audacity, “I think it is fair to say that some of that should go right now into humanitarian aid in Gaza.”

sounds like a quid pro quo? Should Sanders be removed from running for president since he is admitting that he will use quid pro quo if he becomes president?
If Sanders is withholding aid to get Israel to investigate a person he is running against in the US? YES he should be removed! You don't use your personal lawyer and off the books goons to 'investigate' domestic political rivals. The president has the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the freaking DOJ to carry out corruption investigations. Politics should have nothing to do with it. So many have such faith in the DOJ that them simply saying they reviewed Trumps call and found nothing wrong was good enough to move on correct? Why didn't Trump put that faith in his DOJ to investigate Biden, Clinton, and any other political rivals he had? Why use Giuliani? Would you be happy if a democratic president investigated a republican candidate this way?
 

highrider

Member
Dec 18, 2010
9,448
2,941
900
52
washington d.c.
Nobody cares except democrats, and they have no shot at the presidency and are well on their way to losing the house. They’re doing what they can to hold on to the power that they have, and are continuing to fail miserably. You have to do stuff. I know you think the green deal and open borders is a platform but it’s more of a commitment you’ve shown to doing nothing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tesseract

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
If Sanders is withholding aid to get Israel to investigate a person he is running against in the US? YES he should be removed! You don't use your personal lawyer and off the books goons to 'investigate' domestic political rivals. The president has the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the freaking DOJ to carry out corruption investigations. Politics should have nothing to do with it. So many have such faith in the DOJ that them simply saying they reviewed Trumps call and found nothing wrong was good enough to move on correct? Why didn't Trump put that faith in his DOJ to investigate Biden, Clinton, and any other political rivals he had? Why use Giuliani? Would you be happy if a democratic president investigated a republican candidate this way?
Trump asked Zelensky to talk with AG Barr, its right in the transcripts. He did exactly what you wanted him to do, have the DOJ work with the Ukranians.

And LOL, what do you think Russiagate was? The Democrats already did way worse than what Trump did. Hillary paid for a dirty dossier made up of what the NY Times calls Russian disinformation. The DNC through their Taco Bell Chalupa worked with with the Ukraninas to get dirt on Trumps campaign and even the Ukranian courts found that they interfered in the election. The Dems opened this pandora's box, but now they whine and cry about it.

Truth is Biden has himself to blame for going on video and bragging about getting Shokin fired, maybe if he wasn't so bragadociouse about it then Trump wouldn't feel that the American public has a right to know if Biden abused his power and how the DNC colluded with the Ukrainians to influence the election.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
515
122
1,025
Trump asked Zelensky to talk with AG Barr, its right in the transcripts. He did exactly what you wanted him to do, have the DOJ work with the Ukranians.
Though, according to the DoJ, Barr was never informed.


And I think the underlying point is that it should be the job of the DoJ to decide whether an investigation is worthwhile initiating, not the president.
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
4,766
5,982
420
If Sanders is withholding aid to get Israel to investigate a person he is running against in the US? YES he should be removed! You don't use your personal lawyer and off the books goons to 'investigate' domestic political rivals. The president has the FBI, CIA, NSA, and the freaking DOJ to carry out corruption investigations. Politics should have nothing to do with it. So many have such faith in the DOJ that them simply saying they reviewed Trumps call and found nothing wrong was good enough to move on correct? Why didn't Trump put that faith in his DOJ to investigate Biden, Clinton, and any other political rivals he had? Why use Giuliani? Would you be happy if a democratic president investigated a republican candidate this way?
Does anyone think they don’t?
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
Though, according to the DoJ, Barr was never informed.


And I think the underlying point is that it should be the job of the DoJ to decide whether an investigation is worthwhile initiating, not the president.
Well I think that kinda proves a point that Trump threw it out there and then just let it die and this wasn't some huge serious matter that he was going to devote tons of resources too, and Dems are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

He threw it out there that he wanted Ukraine to look into corruption and then decided to let them take care of it and released the aid and moved on as business as usual.

Its not the big conspiracy Dems are trying to make it out where Trump paid someone to create a fake dossier and then diseminate it through the DOJ/FBI/NSA/CIA and then started spying on Biden's campaign and also outsourcing that spying to US allies so they could do things that American's couldn't.
 
Oct 2, 2017
248
260
305
All it takes for this to turn into a net positive for the President is if Hunter Biden is actually somehow found out to be a legitimate piece of garbage who has actually been up to no good all this time.
 

DarkMage619

Member
Jun 19, 2004
590
66
1,450
Trump asked Zelensky to talk with AG Barr, its right in the transcripts. He did exactly what you wanted him to do, have the DOJ work with the Ukranians.

And LOL, what do you think Russiagate was? The Democrats already did way worse than what Trump did. Hillary paid for a dirty dossier made up of what the NY Times calls Russian disinformation. The DNC through their Taco Bell Chalupa worked with with the Ukraninas to get dirt on Trumps campaign and even the Ukranian courts found that they interfered in the election. The Dems opened this pandora's box, but now they whine and cry about it.

Truth is Biden has himself to blame for going on video and bragging about getting Shokin fired, maybe if he wasn't so bragadociouse about it then Trump wouldn't feel that the American public has a right to know if Biden abused his power and how the DNC colluded with the Ukrainians to influence the election.
1 The president asked Barr AND his personal lawyer to talk to Zelensky. That is not normal. Giuliani did most of the work not the DOJ.

2 The 'dirty dossier' was started by a republican never Trumper not Clinton. They picked up where he left off so blame Republicans for it.

3 Bidens open corruption bragging was the position of the entire US government the EU and pretty much ALL western countries. Biden had a boss. He could not withhold anything without support from the president. Trump has no boss and his 'investigation' into Bidens corruption only benefited himself not the US. In addition Ukraine was not the country that interfered in 2016 election Russia did. So Trumps interest was totally personal and wasn't the US position.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
7,342
8,748
880
1 The president asked Barr AND his personal lawyer to talk to Zelensky. That is not normal. Giuliani did most of the work not the DOJ.
Why is it not normal? Why can't Rudy look into Ukraine?

2 The 'dirty dossier' was started by a republican never Trumper not Clinton. They picked up where he left off so blame Republicans for it.
Wrong. Republicans left Fusion way before the dossier was started. It was 100% a Clinton thing.

3 Bidens open corruption bragging was the position of the entire US government the EU and pretty much ALL western countries. Biden had a boss. He could not withhold anything without support from the president. Trump has no boss and his 'investigation' into Bidens corruption only benefited himself not the US. In addition Ukraine was not the country that interfered in 2016 election Russia did. So Trumps interest was totally personal and wasn't the US position.
Well a Ukranian court convicted the guy put in charge of Obama's anti corruption bureau for interfering in the US election. So even the Ukranians say they interfered in the election. And the investigation into "Biden" benefits the American people to know if Biden abuses his power to save his son. If in 2016 it was important for the public to know if Trump was corrupted by Russians its just as important to know if Biden was corrupt in the Ukraine (and China, and Romania).
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
515
122
1,025
Well I think that kinda proves a point that Trump threw it out there and then just let it die and this wasn't some huge serious matter that he was going to devote tons of resources too, and Dems are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

He threw it out there that he wanted Ukraine to look into corruption and then decided to let them take care of it and released the aid and moved on as business as usual.
Well, the accusation is that Trump ordered the aid to be withheld until Ukraine opened an investigation into Hunter Biden, and that this was communicated to Ukraine on the September 1st meeting in Warsaw.

So if that isn't the case, then yes what was said on the phone call isn't such a big deal.
 

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,023
998
380
Suddenly the Dems are originalists when it comes to the Constitution. Now they are saying Trump should be impeached for bribery, not as it is legally defined today but as the Founders understood it, which is a much broader definition that would consider his Ukraine deal bribery.

Get ready for an ugly show!!!

They are also talking about impeachment over attempted actions.

I understand attempted murder is a crime, but is attempted bribery a crime? And if there was no quid pro quo, even if someone wanted there to be, if there wasn’t, is that still a crime?
 

Eiknarf

Member
Mar 25, 2019
1,023
998
380
Unbelievable! The Democrats’ star witness, witnessed nothing and admitted it! What a cuck!

If americans cant see through this bullshit they are blind fucks

First russia

Then Cavanaugh

Now phone call

That’s three major strikes against the Democrats
 
Last edited: